Preamble

The House met at Half Past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For the Borough of Croydon (North Division) in the room of the Right Honourable Henry Urmston Willink, M.C., K.C. (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (ANTI-BRITISH DEMONSTRATIONS)

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what satisfaction His Majesty's Government have received in respect of their representations about the anti-British demonstrations in China which occurred in January, 1948.

The Minister of State (Mr. Hector McNeil): I regret that I have as yet nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) on 16th February.

Mr. William Teeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Consulate in Canton is functioning?

Mr. McNeil: It is.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN

British Journalists

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Mr. Compton Pakenham, a British subject, and chief of "Newsweek's" Tokyo Bureau, has been refused permission to

return to Japan on behalf of that newspaper; why the "Daily Herald" correspondent has been warned that if he visits Singapore he may not be allowed to return; how many other British-born journalists have recently received revised instructions from the United States Public Information Office; what have these instructions been; and what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. McNeil: As Mr. Pakenham is an employee of an American newspaper, and as it was in that capacity that his re-entry into Japan was refused, His Majesty's Government have not taken the matter up with the authorities concerned and, therefore, have no official information on the subject. The "Daily Herald" correspondent was informed before leaving Japan for Singapore that the then existing regulation whereby correspondents accredited to Far East Command could leave the theatre for a period of 90 days without re-accreditation was under revision, and that consequently when he wished to return he should apply for such re-accreditation. This he did from Singapore on 21st January, and was informed by telegram on 3rd February that clearance had been given. All British-born journalists concerned have been informed of the revised regulations. These regulations provide that correspondents accredited to Far East Command, may, without seeking re-accreditation, leave the theatre (which includes Korea, the Philippines, Okinawa and Guam) on duty for 30 days every six months and for 15 days to China for recreation as often as they like. No action beyond the application for the "Daily Herald" correspondent's clearance, has been taken by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that 30 days is an impossibly short period for journalists who are trying to find out things in the Far East? Japan is a very good centre from which to work, and in view of the very rosy attitude of the S.C.A.P. organisation, in connection with conditions there, is it not advisable that journalists should be allowed to meet any type of Japanese so that they can find out what is really going on behind the scenes?

Mr. McNeil: Since the hon. Gentleman called attention to this regulation—and


I am grateful to him for doing so—I asked for reasons as to why it was necessary. I would point out that all correspondents are familiar with the regulation.

Mr. Teeling: As General MacArthur has written a full statement to Congress about the case of Mr. Pakenham could we have a copy of it placed in the Library?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think there would be any difficulty about that.

Accommodation (British Business Men)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what residences which belonged to British firms or British subjects before the war in Tokyo and Kobe are at present occupied by American Army officers and their families; how many housing units it is estimated will be available for occupation by non-Japanese by the spring; and whether any of these are being allocated to British business men or British firms.

Mr. McNeil: My information is that there are no British residences in Tokyo occupied by American Army officers and their families. In Kobe there are about 31; and in Yokohama 25. I do not know how many housing units will be available for occupation by non-Japanese in the spring. There is an acute shortage of accommodation in Japan. As long as the occupation forces remain at their present strength there is little likelihood of housing being released by the Supreme Commander. However, under new regulations for the entry of business men which have just been issued a limited amount of housing and office space now occupied by Japanese will, I hope, become available for British business men. Business men of all nationalities will in the main be accommodated in the commercial hotels operated by the Japanese Government in Tokyo and other important Japanese cities.

Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there were quite a lot of British go-downs and other British property not allowed to be returned because they were not held by the Japanese; and is he further aware that the whole position becomes more difficult in view of the fact that General MacArthur claims that it is not his fault, and that this matter should

be dealt with in Washington? Can the Minister say whether any steps have been taken in Washington to see that British business men get the houses they require?

Mr. McNeil: The Question referred to British residences and it is about those residences that I have replied. We have been in negotiation on the question of making accommodation available with, as I have indicated, some success.

Japanese (United Kingdom Visits)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Japanese have been allowed to leave Japan for the United Kingdom since the Allied Forces landed; what have been the purposes of their visits; and how many have applied for permission through the United Kingdom Mission to S.C.A.P.

Mr. McNeil: Six Japanese have been allowed to leave Japan for the United Kingdom since the Allied Forces landed. They were all British-born women returning to live in this country. In all, 14 Japanese have applied, through the United Kingdom Liaison Mission, to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers for permission to leave Japan for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Teeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the rest of the 14 have not been allowed to come back?

Mr. McNeil: I obviously cannot do so without notice. Two cases with which I am familiar have been refused because the reasons for proceeding to the United Kingdom did not seem to be sufficient.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the B.B.C. are particularly anxious to get a number of special Japanese—people whom they want themselves—and they are not having very great success at the present moment?

Mr. McNeil: I know about that. This question of Japanese leaving for commercial or cultural reasons is being discussed as a whole by the Far Eastern Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROUMANIA (ARRESTS)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that after the Roumanian Government signed the Peace Treaty last


February nation-wide man hunts were conducted on a mass scale resulting in the arbitrary arrest and incarceration of thousands of Roumanian citizens; and whether as a result of his recent note it has been possible to secure the release of some of these prisoners in view of the pledges given by Roumania in Clause (3) of the Treaty.

Mr. McNeil: As the hon. Member is well aware, His Majesty's Government deplore the totalitarian practice of arbitrary arrest of which there have been unfortunately abundant examples in Roumania in the last year. His Majesty's Government have made clear to the Roumanian Government not only their abhorrence of this form of political persecution but also their view that these arrests constitute a violation of the Peace Treaty. I regret that I have no information as to recent releases of prisoners.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (CONFISCATED NEWSPAPER)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that all copies of the issue of Saturday, 7th February, 1948, of the British-sponsored newspaper "Weltpresse" have been confiscated by the Russians in their zone and in the Soviet sector in Vienna; and whether he has made any protest to the Russian representative on the Allied Commission of Control; and whether any numbers of the Russian-sponsored paper have ever been confiscated in the British zone and in the British sector of Vienna.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend is informed that the Soviet authorities took exception to an article from the Kemsley Press which was reproduced in the "Weltpresse" on 7th February and which discussed the possible succession to Stalin. The Soviet authorities instructed the Austrian police to confiscate copies of the issue in their zone and sector and also sent a letter of protest to the Acting British High Commissioner. The latter replied on 12th February rejecting the Soviet protest and expressing his astonishment at the action taken by the Soviet authorities which he pointed out was contrary to Allied Council agreements.
As regards the third part of the Question, no Russian-sponsored papers have ever been confiscated in the British zone or in the British sector of Vienna.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR OSWALD MOSLEY (ITALIAN DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what documents relating to Sir Oswald Mosley's visit to Italy and his relations with Italian Fascists were captured by the Allied Forces; and if he will publish them.

Mr. McNeil: Some documents interring that Sir Oswald Mosley was in the closest association with the Italian Fascist Government are in our possession. However, since our researches through the Italian papers and archives in our possession are not yet completed, and will proceed very slowly since the documents seem to be of secondary importance, I am not yet in a position to answer the second part of the Question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the reemergence of this party and the fact that the matter can no longer be considered of secondary importance, will the Minister inquire whether or not there was any reference to financial assistance to this party in these documents?

Mr. McNeil: Whether or not they are of secondary importance depends, of course, upon what other work is in hand. We are working on a joint project for publishing papers from the German archives, and we consider that to be much more important work. As to the second part of the Question, I made it plain that we were talking about inferences, but I should not like to pretend that the subject of money did not figure in the correspondence.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will do nothing to raise Sir Oswald Mosley from secondary to primary importance?

Mr. Bramall: Even if my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to publish these documents, will he see that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is made aware of their contents?

Mr. McNeil: I have absolutely no doubt that my right hon. Friend is aware of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Repatriated Prisoners (Currency Exchange Rate)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now reconsider the decision made which obliges prisoners of war on repatriation to change their accumulated savings into marks at the rate of 15 to the £, since the continuance of the present arrangement, in the absence of currency reforms in Germany, means that the bulk of the men have been working in this country for next to nothing.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the continuance of the present arrangement is grossly unfair to these men and discourages them from putting their best into their work here; and will not he use his influence to see that they may be granted a little more in British currency now, if the arrangement which I have suggested in the Question cannot be adopted?

Mr. McNeil: I think that the second part of the supplementary question might be more appropriately directed to another Minister. As to the first part, I regret that I cannot concede the point, because this conversion rate must be related to any general conversion scheme.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whereas conditions in most respects have greatly improved for prisoners of war, there is this one continuing grievance about which they feel a real injustice? Will he not re-examine the whole matter to see if it cannot be put on a more reasonable basis in relation to the cost of living in Germany? Fifteen marks is absolutely trifling.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether 15 marks to the pound is the official rate of exchange?

Mr. McNeil: There is, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, no official rate in the normal sense of that word. It is an agreed rate.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House whether his original monosyllabic reply approves of this course, or whether anything prevents him from taking the course he would

like to take? Does he realise that this is really depriving these people of the fruits of their efforts, and that it involves the good faith of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. McNeil: The good faith of His Majesty's Government is not in question. My reply did not indicate whether I favoured it or not. My reply was in relation to fact, and it was bisyllabic and not monosyllabic.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: If it is suggested that the original answer was in relation to fact, is it not a fact that there is a great discrepancy between the rate of exchange allowed to these men and the rate allowed to other men; and ought not that discrepancy to be put right to prevent the British Government from making an illegitimate profit out of a false rate of exchange?

Mr. McNeil: I cannot see where the false rate of profit comes in. As I have already explained in a previous reply, there are no sterling balances which they can hold. The comparison made with other rates of exchange is, I think, the comparison with the rate paid to British troops in Germany, which is a different matter. That was a rate fixed by the military powers before the occupation took place.

Mr. Bramall: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the basis of this rate, which appears to bear no relation to reality; and with whom an agreement has been reached? He said that this was an agreement. Can he say with whom this has been agreed?

Air-Commodore Harvey: As the war has been over for nearly three years, will the right hon. Gentleman review this matter, and try to pay a rate nearer to the rate for the job?

Mr. McNeil: This is a diminishing problem, although, I agree, that does not make it any the less severe for the people affected; but I have already given a reason why it would be unsuitable to review it alone. If it in any way prejudiced the general rate that must eventually be agreed upon, that must be undesirable, and for that reason, while I will promise that my right hon. Friend will look at the matter again, I do not like to be dishonest by holding out any great hopes.

Mr. John Hynd: In view of the fact that the 15 mark rate is purely arbitrary and provisional within Germany, and bears no relation whatever to the conditions under which these prisoners were paid in this country, will he give serious consideration to adjusting the rate of exchange, so that it will bear some relation to the conditions in which they were paid here?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Captured Diplomatic Documents

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the terms of the agreement between Russia, U.S.A. and Great Britain on the question of the publication of diplomatic documents captured in Germany.

Mr. McNeil: There is not and never has been any agreement between Russia, the United States and Great Britain for the publication of diplomatic documents captured in Germany.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of recent articles in the Russian Press quoting from these captured diplomatic documents, will the Minister put a translation in the Library so that Members can inform themselves as to what they are about?

Mr. McNeil: Quite plainly it is most inappropriate to ask His Majesty's Government to publish a translation of documents which, if I understood my hon. Friend aright, are in Soviet possession.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: In view of the fact that a limited number of copies of this publication, as published by the Americans, are available in certain libraries in this country, is it not desirable that there should be an official British publication on the matter?

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend has already explained the fashion in which publication will eventually take place officially in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

British Troops (Directive)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the opening of fire or the taking of any offensive action by British troops in Greece is within the discretion of local commanders or is subject to a directive from His Majesty's Government; and if the latter, what is the relevant part of the directive.

Mr. McNeil: A directive approved by His Majesty's Government has been issued to British troops in Greece. The relevant part of this directive states that British troops will not become involved in fighting unless they are attacked, or unless their security is directly threatened.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE

Diplomatic Mail Bags

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what inquiries have been made into the disappearance for two months of a diplomatic mail bag consigned to Paris last November.

Mr. McNeil: I am unaware of the disappearance of any Foreign Office bag or any bag for which His Majesty's Government are responsible.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Can the Minister give an assurance that Russia has not got this mail bag?

Diplomatic Immunity

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what categories of British officials attached to missions abroad are held to be covered by diplomatic immunity.

Mr. McNeil: Governments normally establish the categories of officials of foreign diplomatic missions enjoying diplomatic immunity from the local jurisdiction, in accordance with certain general rules of international law and custom.
Since the application of these rules varies as each Government conceives its obligations under them, exact reciprocity is not always possible, but His Majesty's Government consider that it is entitled to expect the following: That the heads of His Majesty's diplomatic missions abroad, the members of their diplomatic staffs,


and other officials performing clerical and comparable duties under the direction of His Majesty's Ambassador or Minister shall all, unless they are nationals of the country concerned, enjoy immunity from the local civil jurisdiction and, so far as the first two categories are concerned, from criminal prosecution also; and that officials of the third category shall not be prosecuted on a criminal charge except after consultation with the Head of the Mission in which they are employed.

Mr. Wilson Harris: While I am very much obliged for that full reply, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is sufficient uniformity of international practice in this matter, or will he agree that there is a case for endeavouring to negotiate an agreed convention through the United Nations Organisation?

Mr. McNeil: There are certainly quite a surprising number of variations in practice, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will consider the suggestion that the system might be usefully reviewed under the United Nations machinery.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED POLES (REPATRIATION, ARGENTINA)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now given fresh instructions to His Majesty's Ambassador in Buenos Aires on the subject of the disabled Polish soldiers still held at a Polish Military Convalescent Depot, near Newbury, who are anxious to return to their homes and families in the Argentine; and if he has had any further communication from the Argentine Government.

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir. We have now heard from His Majesty's Ambassador in Buenos Aires that the Argentine Director of Immigration has agreed to authorise visas for three of the men in question whose disabilities are relatively slight. He also confirmed his willingness to permit unconditionally the return of the men with wives and/or children in the Argentine and to give sympathetic consideration to cases of unmarried men. We hope that they will sail on the s.s. "Empire Deben" at the end of February.

Mr. Driberg: While thanking my right hon. Friend most warmly for his persistence, and the Argentine Government for

its much more helpful attitude, may I ask him to assure me that he will keep his eye on this matter, because there have been so many delays; and will he keep in touch with me about the individual cases concerned?

Mr. McNeil: I am glad to have the opportunity of thanking my hon. Friend for his great help in relation to this subject, and I will most heartily co-operate with him and keep him informed on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (CONSTITUTION, RUSSIAN ZONE)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the nature of the system of rule which has been set up recently in the Russian zone of Korea.

Mr. McNeil: According to an announcement recently made in the capital of the Soviet zone of Korea a new Constitution has been drafted which is to be submitted to the North Korean People's Assembly about the middle of March. The information at our disposal would suggest that Press reports to the effect that changes in the status of North Korea have already taken place are premature.

Mr. T. Reid: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this new development is contrary to international treaties?

Mr. McNeil: I should prefer to see official details of the Constitution before giving any reply.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Minister say whether, under this Constitution, democratic principles will be preserved, and whether human rights, which are now being considered by the United Nations Organisation, will be protected?

Mr. McNeil: As I have indicated, I do not know what changes in the Constitutional structure are contemplated, but I fear the changes in the political structure will mean, I regret to say, one more variation in the familiar theme of the Fatherland Front.

Mr. Teeing: At the present moment is there any official representative or any British newspaperman in North Korea to find out what is going on?

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps I could have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY FUND (U.K. CONTRIBUTION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SORENSEN.

22. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amounts at any time during the war or what assistance of any kind has been given to the International Children's Emergency Fund; and to what extent this country was involved in the original establishment of this fund.

Mr. Sorensen: May I point out that the word "during" should be "since"?

Mr. McNeil: That somewhat alters the Question, but I think the answer will cover it. No funds have been given, or were indeed asked for, since the International Children's Emergency Fund was not set up until 11th December, 1946. The representative of His Majesty's Government supported the resolution which brought it into being. I am happy to inform the House that His Majesty's Government have now decided in principle to make a contribution to the Fund, further details of which will be announced later.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that this will give very great satisfaction to many people in this country, and also at the same time encourage people abroad, especially Governments, to make larger contributions than they anticipated?

Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he will be able to make an announcement on this subject?

Mr. McNeil: I anticipate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will probably want to make the announcement, but there should not be any great delay.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the contribution is to be made to the International Fund itself or to the British Fund which is being organised in this country, because I believe it will make a difference to whether we can attract money outside?

Mr. McNeil: My anticipation is that both methods will be followed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Cyprus Oranges

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of oranges from this season's crop he was offered from Cyprus; and how many were purchased.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I was offered 1,590 tons, which also was the quantity purchased.

Cattle Slaughter, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that numbers of slaughtermen in Aberdeen have been deprived of a livelihood by the wartime practice of exporting live cattle instead of dead meat; and will he revert to the traditional practice by allowing cattle for export to be slaughtered there.

Mr. Strachey: Some cattle are slaughtered in Aberdeen and the meat sent to England, but some live cattle also are sent to other parts of Great Britain at times when the total number of cattle for slaughter in the country as a whole is low. This is done to provide a reasonable minimum standard of work for slaughtermen who are needed in the industry in other areas. Before the war large numbers of cattle were also sent alive and I see no reason for changing the present practice.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that more meat can be carried dead than alive, that cattle lose weight in transit, and for those additional reasons would it not be desirable and economic that the old system should be restored? Will the Minister take steps to do that?

Mr. Strachey: We do not consider that there is a lower proportion of slaughtering in Aberdeen than before the war although the total is lower, but if my hon. and learned Friend will let me have any particular case he has in mind where there has been uneconomic transport of live cattle, I will pay attention to it.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a considerable number of slaughtermen are out of employment, and that they were in continuous employment in Aberdeen in pre-war years?

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Will my right hon. Friend also remember that a certain amount of cruelty is almost inevitable in transporting live cattle?

Mr. Strachey: We realise the difficulties, but some transport of live cattle has always taken place and I doubt whether it could be abolished. As regards the other supplementary question, fewer than 10 slaughtermen are unemployed.

Retail Milk Distribution

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Food whether he is now able to relax restrictions upon the customer's choice of milk retailer.

Mr. Strachey: I have nothing to add at present to the reply given to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) on the 28th January.

Sir J. Mellor: Is it not time that some decision was come to in this matter, since the Committee on milk distribution was appointed as long ago as October, 1946, and issued an interim report in May, 1947. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has received the final report, can he not come to a decision?

Mr. Strachey: The first step is to publish that final report, and that is to be done.

Sir J. Mellor: How soon?

Lord John Hope: What has happened to cause this evidently unexpected delay in a conclusion being arrived at? Is the Minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary told me more than a year ago that something was about to be done?

Mr. Strachey: The report of the Committee covers a very much wider field than is suggested in the Question, as it embraces the whole matter of milk distribution. We have been awaiting that report, which makes recommendations in this regard, as hon. Members will see. It would be a pity if we had to make a change before the report is even published.

Sir J. Mellor: How soon will it be published?

Mr. Strachey: As soon as it can be printed.

Imported Carrots (Prices)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food why he gave about £67 a ton for 4,268 tons of carrots during the year ended 31st December, 1947, while the average price for home-grown carrots was about £10 a ton.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member is misinformed. This high average import price was due to imports of early carrots by private traders.

Sir W. Smithers: Why did the Minister of Food give £60 a ton for foreign carrots when home-grown carrots at £10 per ton were rotting?

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member evidently did not listen to my reply. Those carrots were not bought by the Ministry of Food.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Were not import licences required?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly, but the price of early carrots imported by private traders bears no relation to the price of main crop carrots.

Sir W. Smithers: Were not these carrots imported with permission and by licence?

Mr. Strachey: I have just replied to that question.

Stored Swedes

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food why he has sent out a circular asking for swedes to be stored; what price is he offering as a storage fee, and for how long; and in view of the fact that swedes will stand up to frost in the open better than any other vegetable, why has he asked that they should be stored.

Mr. Strachey: As a safeguard against a vegetable and potato shortage in the spring, I arranged for a reserve of swedes to be stored. Most of it will be kept in clamps and only a minor part in merchants' warehouses. The merchants selling these swedes receive a commission payment, covering storage, of 20s. per ton, out of the total wholesale margin provided by the Root Vegetables Order. The period of storage varies with the rate at which the swedes are cleared. It was necessary to store some swedes where they would be readily accessible.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Minister of Food realise that this order and similar orders make him the laughing stock of farmers, growers and distributors of vegetables?

Mr. Strachey: On the question of who is the laughing stock, I would not like to comment.

Bananas

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Food what percentage of bananas arriving in this country during 1947 were unfit for consumption.

Mr. Strachey: Some 2 per cent

Commander Noble: What check is made on these cargoes by the officers of the Minister's Department?

Mr. Strachey: We make a careful check, but it is impossible to avoid some losses of bananas in shipment. There were such losses before the war.

Mr. Gammans: Can the Minister give the House any idea of what the losses were before the war?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I cannot produce the figures offhand.

Beet Growers (Sugar Allowance)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food why sugar beet growers are refused a special allocation of sugar.

Mr. Strachey: I cannot see any justification for granting an additional allowance of sugar to beet growers.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not a tact that when a recent request for this allocation was made, the Ministry turned it down on the ground that it would be unfair to give a small section of the community preferential treatment in rationed goods? In view of the fact that coal miners are allowed to have a special ration of coal, would it not be fair to allow farm workers who produce sugar beet to have a ration of sugar?

Mr. Strachey: We could not give a particular class of agricultural workers a special ration of the food they produce.

Expectant Mothers (Ration Books)

Mr. Bechervaise: asked the Minister of Food how many medical certificates, R.G. 50, are received in the London area, issued for confinements expected seven months or more from the date of the issue of the certificate.

Mr. Strachey: On the basis of a representative sample the number of expectant mothers in the area of the London Food Division who at 31st December, 1947,

had presented a certificate of pregnancy (R.G. 50) more than six months before the expected date of confinement was about 5,500. I have no figures for the seven months' period.

Mr. Bechervaise: asked the Minister of Food how many ration books, R.B. 7, are returned because confinement has not happened, compared with the number of clothing books containing coupons, that also should be returned.

Mr. Strachey: I am sorry, but this information is not available.

Mr. Bechervaise: Is the Minister aware that there is a certain amount of perturbation among food executive officers concerning the number of ration books returned, as compared with the number of clothing books returned, because of the ineffectiveness of the certificates?

Mr. Strachey: I can see the difficulty, but to over-tighten the regulations—if I may so phrase it—in regard to expectant mothers would be undesirable.

sMr. Bechervaise: Has the Minister any ground for doubting the number of certificates which are issued at the seven months or eight months period?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, we have no grounds for it.

Imported Lettuces

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that there is a prospect of a large crop of good quality home-grown lettuces; and if he will take this into account when deciding the question of licences for imported lettuces.

Mr. Strachey: Prospects for home-grown lettuces during the latter part of the winter season seem good. I do not think, however, that any imports of lettuces we may then receive will interfere with the marketing of the home-grown crop.

Mr. Collins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the position that is likely to arise in May, in view of the fact that in 1946 similar conditions produced an over-great supply, and a considerable loss in food?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, we will certainly bear that point in mind.

Building Workers (Special Cheese Ration)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that builders' workmen in certain areas of Ashford, Kent, have been refused an extra cheese ration on the ground that meat-pies are available to them; and whether, in view of the fact that the quality of these meat-pies has now so deteriorated as to render them well-nigh uneatable, he will allow the additional cheese ration to stand in their lieu.

Mr. Strachey: These workers have been refused the special cheese ration on the grounds that it is practicable for their employers to provide canteen or other catering facilities, such as a packed meals service. In the circumstance I regret that I am not prepared to reverse this decision.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases the alternative catering facilities consist of these meat pies? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to let me see him eat one of these pies, if I bring it to the House?

Mr. Strachey: I would want notice of that question—but I would be delighted to sample the pie.

Vegetables (Agents' Remuneration)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food how much money in the calendar year 1947 was paid to traders appointed as agents for the purpose of purchases of carrots and other vegetables; and whether he will state the amount paid since 1st January, 1948, to the latest available date; and what is the total cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. Strachey: £198,715 in the year 1947, and £34,319 in January, 1948. This remuneration is mainly for potatoes and is no greater than would be earned by the private trade from the wholesale margin, so the public do not pay any more either as taxpayers or consumers.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Minister realise that interference with the normal trade channels causes loss of food to the consumer and loss of money to the taxpayer?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I see no evidence of it.

Imported Meat (Inspection)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Food what steps are taken to ensure that imported meat is clean and fit for sale on delivery to retail shops.

Mr. Strachey: Meat is inspected both on and after arrival, and every effort is made by the officers of my agents and of the public health authorities to maintain a good standard. If the hon. Member will inform me of any particular case for criticism, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain towns meat is received with dirt so deeply embedded in it that it is unsaleable, and that there is, therefore, waste? I will, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, send him particulars.

Potato Ration

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the potato allocation recently to certain towns in the North-West has not been sufficient to meet the weekly ration; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Strachey: Irregular deliveries caused shortages at times in January, but we sent a substantial quantity of potatoes into Lancashire during the second half of that month, since when the position has improved.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that at Royton nobody has had his full ration for more than a month, that the week before last it was only just over 1 lb. and last week just over 2 lb., the difference being made up by stocks which were in the retailers' hands, but are now almost exhausted?

Mr. Strachey: We will look into this case.

Pigs (Bodinnar Committee's Recommendations)

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: asked the Minister of Food to make a statement on the findings of the Bodinnar Committee.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. I have now received the final Report of the Bodinnar Committee and am in a position to say what we propose to do about pigs. The orders to be issued will give precise details of the new regulations, but in broad terms they will be as follows:



1. All pig keepers intending to fatten and slaughter a pig for their own consumption will be required to register with the local food office within seven days of acquisition. This will be an indispensable notice of their intention to apply for a licence to slaughter in not less than four months from the date of registration.
2. The slaughter of pigs will only be permitted:

(a) at a Government slaughterhouse, including bacon factories;
(b) at a slaughterhouse authorised for pigs only; or
(c) at a place specially designated for the slaughter of a specific pig or pigs by a particular person named in the permit.

3. It will be an offence to offer pigs (other than pigs sold for breeding) which are estimated to be over 8 score live weight (160 lb.) for sale either privately or by auction except to the Ministry of Food for slaughter.

These Measures will, I believe, serve to check the abuses which have undoubtedly crept into the self-supplier scheme. Registration will come into effect on 1st May next, which is four months before the beginning of the next slaughtering season. The other provisions will be put into effect as soon as practicable. In the meanwhile there will be much preliminary work to be done in the selection of slaughtering points, the more effective supervision of the store markets and in arranging for much more effective enforcement of the regulations. The new orders will not apply to Northern Ireland.
I hope shortly to make a further announcement on other aspects of the Report of the Bodinnar Committee.

Mr. T. Macpherson: While I thank my right hon. Friend for the very satisfactory way in which he has dealt with this matter, may I ask him whether any decision has been reached regarding the suggestion which was made to the Bodinnar Committee to relate the issue of rations for pigs and poultry to the sales of bacon and eggs to the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Strachey: A recommendation was made on that point, but it is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Hurd: With regard to the point about specified places of slaughter, will it be accepted that a smallholder or cottager can get his own premises licensed for the slaughter of one particular pig?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. That is the purpose of the third provision, that for a

particular pig to be slaughtered by a particular person, a licence will be issued.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to publish the Bodinnar Report or any part of it, so that we may see on what this new order is founded?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. We think that would be undesirable, because it goes into the question of the enforcement of these orders against intending offenders.

Mr. Reid: Can we have part of it?

Mr. Bowles: Will the self-supplier be able to keep more than one pig?

Mr. Strachey: There will be no change in that respect. A self-supplier is allowed to keep two pigs under certain conditions.

Mr. Bowles: Can he kill them both himself?

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the new regulations on that point. It is slightly complicated.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: How does a domestic pig keeper in outlying districts get permission under the first provision to kill his pig. Does he make application to the food office? If he lives in another part of the country, how does he get it?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. He will have to make an application to the food office to slaughter a pig at a certain place at a certain time.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend say what is the relation between the existing bacon ration to the normal consumer and the ration which a producer is able to obtain by the slaughter of two pigs a year for his own use?

Mr. Strachey: He will get very much more bacon, but he will give up his bacon ration.

Farm Workers

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food how soon he expects that his review of the question of seasonal allowances of extra food for agricultural workers will be complete.

Mr. Strachey: I am discussing this matter with the Advisory Committee on Rationing of the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to answer the Question—how soon will this review be completed?

Mr. Strachey: I intended to convey that the matter of time was not wholly under my control.

Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say whether this review includes the position of the self-employed worker, for instance, a smallholder, who happens to live some distance from his work and under existing regulations is debarred from getting the extra food which employees can get?

Mr. Strachey: We would not exclude that category of worker.

Mr. Collins: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the point that the farm worker should himself be able to get these additional rations instead of merely getting them through the farmer?

Mr. Strachey: That is one of the main points for consideration.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food approximately what percentage of agricultural workers in Great Britain generally, and in the County of Essex, are able regularly to obtain pies under the rural pie scheme.

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid we do not know the percentages. However, during September and October, 1947, 1,749,500 meals were on average served each week by 4,082 pie centres throughout Great Britain, and of these meals 93,700 were distributed by 263 centres in Essex.

Mr. Driberg: I am afraid I am not good enough at figures, so could my right hon. Friend say whether that answer indicates that the percentage is rather small, and, if so, is he taking steps to increase it?

Mr. Strachey: I could not answer that question readily either, but we are doing everything we can to increase the number of pies distributed and improve the general service of packed meals, as we consider them most important and valuable.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman state the difference between a rural pie and a city pie?

Mr. R. A. Butler: Could the right hon. Gentleman break down the figures for the County of Essex if I sent him a letter?

Mr. Strachey: I will certainly try to do so.

Pasteurised Milk, Locherbie

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of Food what is the cost per gallon of milk of transporting it from Locherbie to Edinburgh and back to Locherbie and of pasteurising it in Edinburgh at the United Dairies plant, respectively.

Mr. Strachey: The cost of transporting milk from Locherbie to Edinburgh is 1.95d. per gallon in churns, and 1.125d. per gallon in road tankers. I have no information about the other costs.

Mr. Macpherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of pasteurisation is about 2d., and this means that it is costing 5d. to make milk unpalatable to consumers in Locherbie? Will the Minister ensure that they get a chance of changing from pasteurised milk if they wish to do so?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot agree that it is to make milk unpalatable; it is to make it safe.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend also remember the great improvement to health, and the removal of the risk of infection, which results from pasteurisation?

Oral Answers to Questions — FALKLAND ISLANDS (SITUATION)

Mr. Donner: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the willingness of His Majesty's Government in Australia to consider a request to dispatch a cruiser to the Falkland Islands; whether he will express his appreciation of this gesture of Imperial unity in the face of foreign trespass; whether it is intended to make such a request; and if he will make a statement on developments and on the situation in the Falkland Island Dependencies.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have seen the statement by the Australian Prime Minister on 18th February and I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the friendly interest and desire to help which were shown by Mr. Chifley on behalf of His Majesty's Government in Australia. As things are, His Majesty's Government in


the United Kingdom do not, however, see any necessity to ask the Australian Government to send a cruiser to the Falkland Islands. H.M.S. "Nigeria" is now due to arrive at the Falkland Islands very shortly and will then visit the Dependencies in company with H.M.S. "Snipe."

Mr. Donner: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that in no circumstances will His Majesty's Government allow the issue of British sovereignty to be prejudged by the kind of action of which the Argentinian and Chilean Governments are guilty?

The Prime Minister: That does not arise out of this Question. I would like to see it on the Order Paper.

Mr. Eden: While I associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the action of the Australian Government, may I ask whether he is able to give us at least this assurance, that while His Majesty's Government will fulfil at all times their obligations, they are not prepared to be either cheeked or chivied out of British territories anywhere in the world?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give that assurance.

Mr. Gammans: Has the Prime Minister informed the Governments of Chile and Argentina that we regard the action which they have already taken as a direct infringement of British sovereignty over these territories?

The Prime Minister: This matter was answered recently in reply to another Question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we took up the matter with those Governments and proposed that the matter should be brought to the International Court.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Is it not a fact that both these countries owe their liberation and their charter to British sailors and British statesmen, in the case of Chile to Admiral Lord Cochrane and in the case of the Argentine to Mr. George Canning? As there was no question then of any Antarctic possessions, what right have they since to claim possessions of territories which they have never owned and have never occupied and are quite incapable of defending?

Oral Answers to Questions — BLACK MARKET ACTIVITIES (INFORMATION)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Prime Minister if he will instruct all Ministerial Departments that, when they call upon the people to assist in eliminating black markets and other abuses by giving information, it should be stressed that such information should be given to the police and that anonymous information will be entirely disregarded.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In this field the police are not the sole agents for enforcing the law and it would, accordingly, not be proper that all such communications should be addressed to the police. As regards anonymous letters, I cannot accept the view that all such letters should be entirely disregarded. Black market activities and breaches of the controls constitute a serious social mischief and inquiries must be made about any information which may help to minimise this evil. At the same time, I am satisfied that those responsible for enforcing the law are fully aware of the dangers of this type of communication and of the need for further inquiry before taking any action.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will merely encourage anonymous letters, which is highly undesirable? Does he realise that with all these additional regulations which come out, more and more people tend to resent those people who are not immediately affected by these regulations, and that all his answer will do will be to encourage envy, hatred and malice?

The Prime Minister: I certainly do not think that is a fair statement. It would be equally unfair if I suggested that the hon. and gallant Member's Question implied that we should not pursue black marketeers.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it not a fact that the police would never take action on what is contained in anonymous letters?

The Prime Minister: Not without further confirmation. They might put up an inquiry.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many prosecutions were brought in the last year as a result of anonymous communications?

The Prime Minister: Quite obviously I could not answer that. The question should be put down to the Minister concerned.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the enormous number of people who are affected by these anonymous letters, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION

Mr. De la Bére: asked the Lord President of the Council whether, having regard to the financial crisis with which this country is at present faced, and with a view to curtailing expenses, he will consider reducing the size of and decreasing the expenditure on the Central Office of Information forthwith, by retaining only such part of the organisation as relates to reference libraries and other records of public value.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself set up the Central Office of Information? Surely he is aware that it is costing nearly as much as the Ministry of Information did during the war, but has not nearly such a large staff? Is it not largely redundant?

Mr. Morrison: No, I do not think the Central Office of Information is largely redundant.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that whatever economies are made in this Office on the home front, which may well be possible, it is the sole production unit for overseas publicity, and that is a very important matter?

Mr. Morrison: That will be kept in mind, but I could not undertake, in answer to my hon. Friend's question, that economies would be considered on the home front and never on the overseas front. If economies are considered, surely they must be considered all round.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not have value for money?

Oral Answers to Questions — REGENCY HOUSES, PARK VILLAGE EAST

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Agriculture why Sussex and Albany Cottages, Nash houses in Park Village East, which have been empty for 3½ years but could be made habitable, have not been repaired and are being allowed to deteriorate; and how soon will repairs be put in hand.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Work on the necessary structural repairs has now begun.

Mr. Keeling: Would the Minister of Agriculture say why other Crown houses in London which were much worse damaged in the war, and are intrinsically less worth preserving than these Regency houses, were repaired much earlier?

Mr. Williams: That is merely a matter of opinion, but I understand that those best able to judge are proceeding as rapidly as they have labour and other materials available to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Wheat Prices

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to ensure that the price of home-grown wheat is made approximate to the price paid for imported wheat, having special regard to the increased turnover in the British acreage which would result, and the corresponding reduction that would take place in external dollar payments for wheat.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. I do not think that tying the price of home-grown to that of imported wheat would be in the interests of British agriculture or serve the purposes suggested by the hon. Member

Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is that the Government pay to the Argentine £34 a ton for wheat as compared with £18 for the English? Surely, there is something wrong there?

Mr. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Member will be interested to learn that, overall, we pay less for imported wheat than we are paying for our home-grown wheat.

Women's Land Army

Mr. Solley: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether he is aware that the Women's Land Army hostel at Orsett, Grays, Essex, was formerly a prisoner-of-war camp; and what alterations have been made in the sanitary, cooking, heating and sleeping arrangements of the camp since its use as a hostel;
(2) whether he is aware that last week three members of the Women's Land Army walked out of the hostel provided for them at Orsett, Grays, Essex, as a protest against the bad conditions there; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware that three new recruits to the W.L.A. recently left Orsett hostel after complaining of the conditions. This hostel is an ex-Army camp and it is in sound order structurally. It was called into use last November in an emergency to house 108 members of the Land Army from Mark Hall, Harlow, which was destroyed by fire. Alterations were necessary to bring the hostel up to proper standard, and arrangements were made for these works to be done. Additional lavatories for night use, and heating in dormitories, dining and recreation rooms and sick bays have already been provided, and I shall certainly do my best to ensure that the work of installing further baths and replacing cooking appliances is completed at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Solley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there are no baths for these girls, that there are eight shower baths among 120 girls and 24 sinks which have to be used not merely for cleaning hands and faces, but for clothes? Does he think that is satisfactory, in view of the circumstances? Further, may I ask whether or not it is the fact that a recreation room is completely unheated, and that this hostel has not even a radio?

Mr. Williams: I have already explained to the hon. Member that this hostel was taken over in an emergency when the Mark Hall building was razed to the ground by fire, and that as speedily as possible we are replacing the missing things referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Solley: While I appreciate the difficulties of my right hon. Friend, does he

not agree that three or four months is an ample period in which to obtain for the girls a wireless set and other elementary amenities?

Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Member that I am as anxious as he is to bring this hostel up to standard at the earliest moment.

Mr. York: Is it not true that this standard is very little below the average of all hostels for the Land Army, and will the Minister make a general review of the conditions in all these camps?

Mr. Williams: I do not agree; although I am anxious that the standard of hostel accommodation shall be as good as we can possibly make it for members of the Women's Land Army.

Mr. Solley: asked the Minister of Agriculture what percentage of women now remain in the Women's Land Army after completion of a year's service.

Mr. T. Williams: Precise figures cannot be given without a special inquiry, but it is estimated that rather more than 60 per cent. of the present enrolled strength have served for more than the 12 months required by their undertaking.

Mr. Solley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that from those figures it would appear to be the case that many girls leave the service at the end of their first year because they find the conditions unsatisfactory? If that be so, could he make the conditions better so that more girls remain in the service?

Mr. Williams: No, I do not accept my hon. Friend's conclusion. Many recruits to the Women's Land Army find after some weeks, or months, either that the work is too heavy or that they cannot fit themselves into the countryside. While some leave in the first few weeks or months, nearly 400 have been in the Women's Land Army for eight years.

Gravel Workings (Land Restoration)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in the case of many gravel pits now disused, the top soil has never been replaced with a resulting loss in food production, and whether, in the case of digging new pits, or where temporary below-ground disturbance to agricultural


land is caused, he will take steps to ensure that when operations are completed it is restored as far as possible to its original condition.

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware that before the present planning arrangements were operative, many disused gravel pits were left derelict. The current practice is for planning authorities to consult the appropriate officer of my Department on the agricultural implications of proposals for new gravel working or extensions to existing workings. In giving his advice the officer concerned gives full weight to the importance of restoring the land to full agricultural use wherever that course is practicable and appropriate, and recommends the imposition of suitable conditions to that end.

County Committee Members

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will publish the names of those he has now appointed to serve on county agricultural executive committees; and if he will state the allowances to be paid to them for subsistence and travelling in the course of their duties.

Mr. T. Williams: Lists of members of the new committees have been circulated to the Press and are being published in the national farming and local papers. Members of committees are eligible for travelling and subsistence expenses at the normal rates applicable to unpaid members of Royal Commissions and Government committees.

Mr. Hurd: Will an up-to-date list of the members of the committees be available in the Library, because changes happen in these appointments?

Mr. Williams: I should not have thought it was necessary to place a list in the Library, since they have nearly all been published in one or other of a large number of papers throughout the country.

Mr. Hurd: Not a complete list.

Mr. Williams: There are one or two members here and there not finally chosen perhaps because county council meetings are held only periodically, and in many cases it is the county council members for whom we are waiting.

Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many persons were prosecuted for offences alleged to have been committed against the Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order, dated 27th August, 1947, before its publication in accordance with the requirements of the Rules Publication Act in January, 1948.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to his Questions on this matter on 9th and 16th February. No prosecutions were or could have been instituted before publication of the order by the local authority concerned. I am having inquiries made of local authorities, by whom the order is enforced, to show how many, if any, prosecutions were instituted between that date and republication of the order under the Rules Publication Acts. I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

Grass Drying

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he has taken to ensure that existing grass-drying plants are run to capacity during the 1948 season.

Mr. T. Williams: As regards privately-owned plant, I am taking all practical steps by encouragement and persuasion to ensure a satisfactory output in relation to the size of the plant, and I am asking county agricultural executive committees to give help to owners of plant where they can. As regards co-operative projects which qualify for the financial assistance recently announced, it will be a condition of assistance that a minimum acreage is contracted for and that arrangements are made for three-shift working.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEALS, GREAT YARMOUTH

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the depredations of the ever-growing colony of seals now settled off Great Yarmouth; and if his Department will take steps to remove this danger to the livelihood of the local longshore fishermen.

Mr. T. Williams: I have seen reports that seals are causing damage to the


fisheries off Great Yarmouth, but their destruction is the responsibility of the Sea Fisheries Committee and the fishermen themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (INCIDENTS, JERUSALEM)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will mike any statement on the incidents in Jerusalem yesterday.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): A preliminary report received from the High Commissioner states that at 6.5 a.m. on Sunday, 22nd February, a convoy of three military type trucks and one police type armoured car were observed travel-hog towards the centre of Jerusalem. The occupants wore military and police uniforms. The three trucks parked in Ben Yehuda Street, in the Jewish commercial centre of Jerusalem. At approximately 6.25 a.m. a heavy explosion occurred which completely demolished buidings on both sides of the street. Casualty figures so far available are 27 killed, 32 seriously injured, 48 slightly injured. Shortly after the explosion had taken place, the armoured car was observed leaving Jerusalem along the Jaffa Road at great speed. This vehicle bore an identification number of which there is no trace in police records. Both military trucks and police armoured cars have been stolen in recent disturbances.
Investigations are being made into the responsibility for this incident, and I will make a further statement to the House as soon as possible. Responsibility has not yet been established, but I can say at once that the authorities have found nothing to confirm the allegation understood to have been broadcast in Palestine that members of the British security forces were involved and the Zionist authorities have been challenged to produce any evidence in support of this charge which, as the Palestine Government have said, is unbelievable.
Following the incident, feeling in Jerusalem has been very tense and eight members of the British security forces have been killed in subsequent incidents. British police have been withdrawn from outlying billets.
His Majesty's Government deplore this outrage and the loss of life involved and

they deeply regret that reprisals should have been taken against members of His Majesty's forces and of the Palestine Police. I am sure that the House would wish to extend their sympathy to the relatives of those who have lost their lives, or sustained injury in these deplor able occurrences.

Mr. Eden: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when he hopes to be able to make a further statement in respect of the allegations about British participation, as he will understand that they have already cost many British lives? Will it be possible to make a further statement tomorrow? May I add that we on this side of the House share his conviction that British personnel were in no way mixed up in this dastardly outrage?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I hope to make a further statement during the present week.

Mr. Eden: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether he cannot make a statement tomorrow, or, at the latest, on. Wednesday, because the longer any possible doubts exist, the greater the peril to our unfortunate people out there?

Mr. Rees-Williams: As soon as the information is available, I will make it available to the House, but in any case I will make a statement during the present week.

Mr. Gammans: Will the hon. Gentleman say why the Palestine Government did not issue a denial of our alleged complicity earlier? Does he realise that, as a result of that delay, a number of British lives have been lost, which otherwise might not have been lost?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not agree with the last statement at all. The question of the loss of British lives has nothing whatever to do with the statement of the Palestine Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is quite true.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of the intensity and universality with which this charge—however unbelievable—has been accepted, and will be accepted, I am afraid, throughout the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because people are only too ready to believe the worst—in view of that, will my hon. Friend undertake that, provided any prima facie evidence of any kind is furnished, there


will be the fullest possible investigation to establish that there is nothing in the charge?

Mr. Rees-Williams: We do not anticipate that there will be any prima facie evidence whatever of the charge.

Lord John Hope: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the inquiries an inquiry as to how these military vehicles came to be stolen?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is another question altogether.

Mr. Thurtle: Will my hon. Friend say whether or not he has any confirmation of the statement made in the Press to the effect that two of the British soldiers who were murdered were murdered while in hospital undergoing treatment?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have had no confirmation of that or any other of the details of the occurrence.

Mr. Janner: Will the Under-Secretary of State have an inquiry made into the whole of the circumstances relating to this matter, a full and open inquiry at which the parties will have an opportunity of presenting their evidence, and being present to hear what happens?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The Palestine Government are already making a full investigation into all the circumstances, and at this stage I cannot make any further promise on that particular point.

Mr. Eden: I wish to understand the hon. Gentleman aright; is it not a fact that he has already challenged those who made this charge against British soldiers to produce evidence? Could it not go out from this House of Commons that until that evidence is produced we believe our people are innocent?

Mr. Norman Smith: Will my hon. Friend say whether steps are being taken to bring to book the perpetrators of these wicked reprisals?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, of course.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: What is the position of British soldiers at this time, when a certain number of Jews have openly said that they will shoot at every British troop and person they see? Have the British troops been put on a completely

wartime footing; do they move on a wartime footing, and are they subject to any limitation, not only when hostile action is taken against them, but when there is a suspicion that it will be taken against them?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Questions relating to troops should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. S. Silverman: While it is true, and we all agree, that everybody will be most reluctant to believe in the truth of any such charges as have been made, in the absence of evidence will my hon. Friend bear in mind that my question to him was whether, if evidence is produced—and only if evidence is produced—he will institute the most full and searching inquiry to see whether the evidence amounts to anything or not? May I have an answer to that as it is a most important matter?

Sir T. Moore: Do not the Government think that this is a further justification for the earlier withdrawal of our troops from Palestine, in order to save any further deplorable situations of this kind arising?

Dr. Haden Guest: Cannot my hon. Friend promise to make a statement to the House not later than Wednesday? The urgency is very great indeed; and I hope a reply will be made that none of us believes in this abominable lie.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am hoping to give the House a further statement tomorrow. I cannot be committed to give it tomorrow, because the information has to come from Palestine, but that is my hope.

Mr. Warbey: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the information received indicates exactly what types of uniform were worn by the men in these lorries, and whether they were of a British type? If so, what action was taken by the Palestine authorities in the 20 minutes between the time when they were observed proceeding down the road to the time when the explosion took place to check up on their movement and to see what action could be taken to stop what was obviously an illicit operation?

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Reverting to what the Under-Secretary of State said about a commission of inquiry being set up, is there anything to prevent the


spokesmen of the Zionist organisation in Palestine coming forward and giving their evidence, if any?

Mr. Rees-Williams: There is at this stage no question of an inquiry. Certain allegations have been made which we do not believe. We have told the people who made them, "Come and give your evidence," and it is up to them to produce their evidence. If they produce evidence against British troops—and we do not believe that they can do so—we shall then consider the position. At this stage it is entirely premature either to discuss these details, or to discuss what might happen in a hypothetical set of circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASEHOLD PREMISES (COMMITTEE)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
49. MR. PETER FREEMAN—TO ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will announce the names of the members of the Committee formed by the Lord Chancellor for the inquiry into leasehold reform; their terms of reference; and when they will commence their meetings.
50. MR. GEORGE THOMAS—To ask the Lord President of the Council the names of the persons selected to serve on the Advisory Committee set up in connection with the anomalies of the leasehold system and the precise terms of reference given to this Committee.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the public interest involved, I think it right to give to the House the answer to Questions 49 and 50. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has now set up a Committee to consider various questions affecting leases of both residential and business premises in England and Wales. The Chairman will be Lord Uthwatt, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the other members and the Committee's terms of reference. The Committee will begin work immediately.

Following is the information:

Leasehold Committee

The Lord Chancellor has appointed the Rt. Hon. Lord Uthwatt (Chairman), Miss Helen Alford, Mr. E. Roderic Bowen, M.P., Mr. Edward Bailey Gillett, Mr. C. L. Hale, M.P., Mr. Alfred George

Harfield, Sir Edwin S. Herbert, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, C.B.E., K.C., M,P., Mr. W. B. Reddaway, and Mr. A. L. Ungoed-Thomas, K.C., M.P., to be a Committee with the following terms of reference:
To consider and report on the following questions, in so far as they affect England and Wales:

(1) Whether, and in what circumstances, and on what terms an occupying tenant of residential or other premises should be given the right to purchase compulsorily the freehold and any other prior interests in the premises, and to consider any other aspects of the problem of leasehold enfranchisement.
(2) Whether and in what circumstances an occupying tenant of business premises, including premises used for any business, trade or professional purpose, should be given security of tenure such as is at present enjoyed by tenants of premises which are subject to the Rent Restriction Acts
(3) Whether it is desirable and practicable to control rents charged for business premises and if so by what means
(4) Whether the rights of a landlord to impose and enforce covenants to repair should be further restricted and in what manner.
(5) Whether further provision should be made for giving to tenants a right of compensation for improvements on the termination of their tenancies
(6) Any matters arising out of or connected with these questions; and

to make interim reports on any matter or matters arising out of these terms of reference which may from time to time appear to merit immediate attention or to warrant separate treatment
The Lord Chancellor has appointed Mrs. Hobsbawm of the Board of Trade and Mr. Richard Thesiger of the Lord Chancellor's Department to be Secretary and Assistant Secretary respectively of the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

COTTON SPINNING (RE-EQUIPMENT SUBSIDY) BILL

"to provide for the payment of grants out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of the re-equipment or modernisation of cotton spinning concerns and for purposes connected therewith,"—presented by Mr. Wilson, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. G. R. Strauss, and Mr. Belcher; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

(SECOND ALLOTTED DAY)

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1947–48.

CLASS II

INDIA AND BURMA SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Burma and certain salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, including the salary of the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations: and for sundry India and Burma services, including compensation payments and other expenses arising out of the setting up of the independent Dominions of India and Pakistan and the grant of independence to Burma, certain expenses in the Persian Gulf and certain grants in aid"—[Mr Noel-Baker.]

3.44 P.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The Supplementary Estimates which I have to present are quite straightforward, and I hope that I can explain them adequately without detaining the Committee for long. Indeed, the notes in the Estimate itself do most of the work for me.
The £10 asked for under subhead A is simply a token Vote to obtain the authority of Parliament for the payment of salary due to the Secretary of State for Air while he was Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations. The money required is in fact available from savings effected under Vote A.
Subhead L provides for compensation to members of the Secretary of State's Services in India and to officers of the Indian Army on premature termination of their employment due to the transfer of power. The scheme of compensation was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10th April last year, and it has been published in two White

Papers. The total sum asked for is £9,800,000, of which £7,600,000 goes to members of the Defence Services, and £2.2 million to members of the Civil Services. The Committee will be glad to know that the great majority of all the valid claims have already been put in and met. Of the military claims 2,988 have been paid, and 41 are under examination. There may, of course, be a few more belated claims but most of them have come in. Of the civil claims, 658 have been paid out, 65 are under examination and 209 have not yet come in. The 209 are, of course, mostly people who are still serving with the Governments of India and Pakistan.
Subhead M provides the sum of £715,000 for the same purposes in Burma As the date of the transfer of power was so much later, the proportion of the claims received is smaller but a substantial number have, in fact, already been dealt with. The proportion that goes to members of the Defence Services is much smaller, only £15,000 out of the total.
Subhead N provides for the expenses of the High Commission in Burma, which since 4th January has become our Embassy, and will, therefore, be dealt with by the Foreign Office. The largest single item there is £8,100 for travelling and incidental expenses. The staff that was not locally recruited had to be sent out at very short notice, and accordingly they had mostly to travel by air, which wa relatively expensive.
Under subhead O provision is made for the cost, since 15th August, of our High Commissions in India and Pakistan The headquarters of the High Commissioner in India, Sir Terence Shone, are in New Delhi, of course. He has Deputy High Commissioners in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, and we hope that he will soon have a fourth at Cawnpore. The High Commissioner in Pakistan, Sir Laurence Grafftey Smith, has outposts at Lahore. Dacca, and Peshawar. Both Commissions have done invaluable work in the face of great difficulties. Their burden is very heavy, and it seems almost certain that I shall soon have to ask Parliament for a further increase of staff. These two Commissions carry on our relations with Governments which between them rule 400 million people, and with whom we hope that our relations will continue to


be as close and friendly as they are today Therefore, I trust that no one will think that we are asking for too much.
Subheads P and S cover certain expenditure in relation to the transfer of power in Burma. Subhead P provides for two motorcars which were presented by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the President and Prime Minister of Burma respectively as a token of the deep and sincere good will that exists between the Governments and peoples of Great Britain and Burma. The Secretary of State for Air represented His Majesty's Government at the independence celebrations on 5th January and presented the cars. Subhead S provides for payments which I am sure the Committee will approve, made by the Governor of Burma to subordinate staff at Government House. They were made as a recognition of long and faithful service. I understand the gifts were much appreciated; certainly they were richly deserved.
Perhaps I ought to say a word in reference to the large saving on subhead E of the original Estimate. Since the evacuation of Burma in 1942 the Government of the United Kingdom have been making advances to the Government of Burma. Those advances have been used, partly to meet Government deficits and partly to finance the reconstruction of key industries and the provision of civil supplies. We expected that, during the financial year 1947–48, we should advance £25 million for the above purpose. In fact this did not happen. The Government of Burma became their own masters in matters of finance early last year, and they did not take the advance of £25 million for which we had provided.
That, however, does not represent a net saving, for when the sum was voted by the House we expected to receive certain payments from the Government of Burma from the projects which were started there and from the sale of Army stores, including stores for the Civil Affairs Service in Burma. Those payments were not received. The result is as shown in the Supplementary Estimate. The financial position in relation to those transactions was fully discussed when the Treaty between our Government and the Government of Burma was drawn up last autumn, and Article 6 of that Treaty refers to the agreement then reached about it and sets

out what was then settled about the liquidation of the outstanding debt of Burma to us.
There is one other Burmese item in the Supplementary Estimate under subhead R, the Burma-China Railway When this railway was built the Government of this country bore the cost of the Burma section, and we advanced the funds required to the Burmese Government. The belated credit, which is mentioned in the note at subhead R, is a refund of money which we so advanced, but which was not required. On the other hand, we were liable to reimburse the Government of Burma for the payment of pensions to the dependents of local recruited personnel who lost their lives during the building of the railway. The Government of Burma will, in future, be responsible for the payment of the pensions and we are making provision here for a sum of a little less man £6,000 as the final payment in full discharge of our liabilities to the citizens of Burma.
There remains subhead Q, which provides for the gift of £20,000 from the Treasury to the British Red Cross Society. That is a contribution from the Government to the Fund which the British Red Cross Society have raised for relief work to help refugees in India and Pakistan. I should not be in Order if I attempted to discuss the great movement of the population from East to West Punjab, and vice versa, which happened during the autumn months. I have heard a great deal about it, both from representatives of India and of Pakistan. During the proceedings of the Security Council in the matter of Kashmir in the last few weeks, I had the particular advantage of long talks about it with Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, the very able leader of the Indian delegation, who is himself the Minister in charge of refugee questions.
I myself know a little about refugees, because after the last world war I helped Dr. Nansen in his refugee work for the League of Nations, which included the exchange of two million Greeks and Turks in 1922 and the succeeding years. I think I know the immense difficulties which are involved in a large movement of population on this tremendous scale. In east and west Punjab, of course, there were more than 10 million people who


left their homes to cross the border between the two countries. In my view, in the handling of these refugee problems, both the Governments of India and Pakistan, once they got the troubles under control, have shown unbounded zeal and a great deal of wisdom in dealing with the matter. According to my information, they have already settled a large proportion of the refugees, and certainly they are working together closely, and in friendly co-operation, on the very complex problems of property which are always involved when such movements happen.
In those events there has happily been less loss of life than was at one time feared. There has been, however, a grievous loss of life. It is to deal with this great problem of human suffering and need that the British Red Cross Society has offered its contribution. From the beginning of the troubles the Society were very active in providing medical supplies and comforts for India and Pakistan. They decided, with the full support and concurrence of the Government, to send more active help in the form of a British field hospital, staffed by British personnel. From their slender resources the Society have ear-marked £25,000. They are appealing to the public for further help, and, I believe, are receiving generous response. I wish to express the very warm admiration which the Government feel, not only for what the Governments of India and Pakistan have accomplished, but also for what the Red Cross are doing now. It may seem a small matter, but I believe it will have a great symbolic value and I warmly recommend it to the Committee.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Some important matters are raised by the Supplementary Estimates. I think the Committee will agree that it is the most typical work of Parliament to scrutinise expenditure, particularly of Supplementary Estimates, which imply, in many cases, that the original Estimate was not correctly made. In this case we have the satisfaction of knowing that the total amount asked before in the India and Burma Services is a small amount, owing to the anticipated saving referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, details of which can, and should, be found in the Treaty

negotiated with Burma. I do not think, therefore, that I need go at great length into the immense sum of £10,810,411 which has been drawn back in order to help to meet the expenditure in payment of compensation which is found under subhead L.
Before coming to the important issues which I wish to consider, I would like to welcome the Secretary of State back from his travels. I am sure there is plenty to occupy him here, and we hope to see more of him than we have recently. In fact, the taking of the Supplementary Estimate may give us an opportunity of giving him a little exercise in his home paddocks, and we shall be glad to see his form.
The two great issues to which I wish to refer are, first, this question of compensation about which I wish to ask a variety of questions; and, second, the question of refugees and the gift of his Majesty's Government to the Red Cross. The first issue raises matters concerning one of the most remarkable services in the world. A set of men not only in the Forces but also in the ranks of the Civil Service have had, through no fault of their own, to terminate their career at a variety of ages and under a variety of circumstances, some of which have been extremely drastic to the personalities concerned. It is the duty of Parliament to devote a little time this afternoon to the consideration of this matter. We owe a great deal to these men, members of the Services, both civil and military, for the services they have rendered to India, to the tradition of their own Service and the common cause of Great Britain, India and Pakistan, and also Burma, which comes in later under subhead N. Therefore, I cannot under-estimate the importance of these issues. I am glad that, to a certain extent, the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman have given us some satisfaction that the cases dealt with have been dealt with expeditiously, and that a great many of them have been handled so far
I want, however, to ask one or two questions of the right hon. Gentleman, first on subhead L. My first question is in regard to the placing of these men. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Dorset (Colonel Wheatley) on 11th December, 1947, he gave an answer and a series of replies to supplementary questions indicating the various offices to


which these men should apply in order to find a placing. Since that date I accepted service upon a committee known as the India and Burma Services Employment Liaison Committee, with a view to placing these men who have been retired and have accepted their compensation. I should like to ask the Secretary of State to give us some idea of the latest figures of placings. At the date in question, some 221 had been placed. I now understand, from what information I could obtain, that some 400 have been placed. The point I want to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State is that there has been a certain success in placing members of the Civil Service proper, but there has been great difficulty in placing those ex-policemen, many of them high up in the service of the State in India, who have applied for positions.
I am not satisfied that we can leave these men, many of whom I have inter viewed myself, with the sense of frustration which they have at having terminated a career very often at a time when a man feels best—that is between the ages of 45 and 50—and finding themselves unable to find a job. That is particularly the case with the police. I hope that we may hear from the right hon. Gentleman of further strenuous efforts to place these men within the ranks of the Government and the vast range of offices and posts which they control. In the India and Burma Services Employment Liaison Committee we have done our best to approach a variety of businesses We have had a reasonably good response although not sufficient to cover all the cases that we have. On 11th December the right hon. Gentleman referred to a variety of agencies, including his own office in Commonwealth Relations. He mentioned the London Appointments Office, of Tavistock Square, the Technical and Scientific Register, the Military Department, Commonwealth Relations Office, and the Defence Services Section of the London Appointments Office. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can add any further agencies to that list, or in any way excite interest within the ranks of the Government in this vital matter.
These men are the victims of State policy. They are men to whom the deliberate and continued attention of the Government ought to be given. I cannot go into the question of State policy on this Estimate. Many of us on all

sides of the Committee were concerned in it, and we all feel that we have a duty to these men. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will interest his colleagues in all the Government Departments in placing them on their retirement. I draw special attention to the Colonial Development Corporation and the Overseas Food Corporation. Would it not be possible to place many of these men in positions with those Corporations?
I now come to some details about the type of man involved in this compensation. I wish to ask a question on the particular subject of the judges. A Question was put to the right hon. Gentleman on 3rd February, 1948, on this subject. It was answered by the present Secretary of State for Air, who concluded his answer by saying:
My right hon. Friend is considering whether the question of compensation to any European Judges who may resign in consequence of changed conditions should not be reopened"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1948; Vol. 446, c 270]
We have had a great variety of requests from judges that their case should be considered. I understand that hitherto compensation for judges has not been granted because it has been felt that the judges are in a different category from civil servants and the military. They are outside the hurly-burly of politics and may be expected to serve whatever Executive may be in power at the moment. Nevertheless, the Government have already indicated that they intend to re-open this question and, in view of the many requests that we have had from judges, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to carry this matter further on this head of compensation and tell us whether these men are entitled to be included.
I turn to another great branch, the non-Secretary of State's services and the provincial services. During the Committee stage of the Indian Independence Act, as long ago as 14th July last, we drew attention to the case of these men. The matter was taken up in another place on 28th January, where an ex-Viceroy, Lord Wavell, interested himself in the matter. We have understood that it is not likely that these men will be covered by this Vote, but I think that I am entitled to ask the Government whether or not that is the case. If it is not, we have understood that the Government intended to raise the


position in which people of these services find themselves with the Governments of the two Dominions involved. We do not suggest that there is any intention that these men should be victimised. In fact, from the statements made by the administrations concerned, one would have every feeling that perhaps their material interests were being safeguarded. However, I think it is legitimate to ask the Government whether, as a result of the approaches which I understand they contemplated making, they are able to give the Committee any assurance either that these men are to be covered by the terms of a subhead of this sort, or that, while retaining their positions in India and continuing with their work, they may expect the same standard of amenities, the same consideration, and the same treatment generally as we attempted to negotiate in the old days when considering the future of the services in India.
A statement has been made by a Minister in India that there will be a natural tendency for preference to be given to Indians. If that be the case, it is naturally rather disturbing to these men who are continuing to serve in India are unable to profit by the terms of this subhead by obtaining any compensation for retirement. I do not wish to labour the point further, partly in order to remain within the general rules of Order and partly because here we are dealing with matters which are fundamentally the concern of the two Dominion Governments in India. The questions which I wish to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman are: Has he made representations to the Dominion Governments concerned; can he give an assurance that the future of these men is a satisfactory one; and can he tell us whether there is any chance at any time of the judges, and them, coming under the terms of the compensation which we are considering today?
I next wish to raise the question of the compensation of members of the Burma Services. The Government of Burma have gone a long way to meet the representations made by us in the Debate on the Independence of Burma Act, for treatment of a favourable character to be given to those who are not members of the Secretary of State's Services. There has been a decision to calculate pensions on a liberal basis and to give an ex gratia Jump sum resettlement grant to certain

of these servants. We on this side of the Committee consider that the Government of Burma deserve thanks from us for the action they have taken in regard to these men. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity he will indicate to the Government of Burma that certain Members of Parliament, at any rate, wish to show their gratitude for the action which has been taken.
In regard to the remaining subheads, I wish for a moment to discuss the cost of the representation of our High Commissioners in the Dominions of India, Burma and Pakistan. It will be seen that of these three subheads, the one for India is by far the greatest, and a simple process of reasoning will result in the deduction that India is a larger country than Burma or Pakistan. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that the Indian High Commissioner is to have representatives in Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Cawnpore, and that the Pakistan High Commissioner is to have local representation in Lahore, Dacca and Peshawar. I should be interested to know why there is this differentiation in the numbers of Deputy High Commissioners between India and Pakistan. Does it mean that the representatives in Lahore. Dacca and Peshawar will be also of the status of Deputy High Commissioners? I see that there are to be four Deputy High Commissioners in India and only two in Pakistan, and I see that one of the Deputy High Commissioners for India is to be paid at a higher rate than the other three. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain which of them is to get the higher rate and to which position that higher rate will attach.
I notice that there is a definite sum of £36,000 for local staff, the number of which is unmentioned, and its relationship to the Foreign Service allowance at the present time is not stressed These are large figures, and I think we should have some further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to the extent to which his office is to be enlarged. I understand that it will be out of Order to discuss this, and another sum of £24,600 for a house for the High Commissioner. There is reference to it at the bottom of page 28. It will certainly be the desire of my hon. Friends and myself to have some explanation why, in the case of India, there is to be this considerable extra expense. Would the right hon.


Gentleman prefer the matter to be raised on the Ministry of Works Vote, or may I ask the Minister for an answer now?

The Chairman: The appropriate place would clearly he on the Vote concerned, and the point might be raised when we reach that Vote.

Mr. Butler: It would be today, of course, Major Milner, because it is all included in the same Supplementary Estimates, but I cannot, with my respect for Order, take it unless you permit me to do so

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would only be appropriate to take up the point on the Vote with which it is concerned

Mr. Butler: I had hoped, Major Milner, that you would be lenient and allow the matter to be discussed now, because it means that the Government will have to lace extra time being spent on this matter when we come to the Ministry of Works Vote. I do not understand at all the transaction which has taken place and to which reference has been made. We shall reserve our right to ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this point on another occasion
I now want to turn to a main issue arising out of this sum of money, and it is to ask the Government when a further treaty or understanding is to be reached between India, Pakistan and this country. The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to the treaty with Burma, and, as he pointed out, there is an indirect reference to it in the Supplementary Estimate we have before us today, and to the bringing in of a further £10 million as a result of these negotiations. We have been informed from time to time that there is to be a treaty between India, Burma and this country, and, presumably, if there is to be such a treaty, all sorts of matters—finance, defence and others—will be raised, and it will be the duty of the High Commissioners, as I see it, in India and Pakistan to help to negotiate any understanding which we may come to with the new Dominions. Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in reply on this particular subhead, if I am right in understanding that the High Commissioners will be involved in the task of drafting any such agreement, and thereby act as links

between our three countries. It will be very interesting to see how this part of the Indian mosaic is to be proceeded with and if we are to have a further under standing with Pakistan.
Leaving aside the gifts of motorcars, which I hope were comfortable and adequate for the purpose, though I do not think the right hon. Gentleman told us what make of motorcar was supplied—

Mr. Noel-Baker: One Rolls-Royce and one Austin.

Mr. Butler: It would be very interesting to know how the Rolls-Royce and the Austin were partitioned between the two offices

Mr. Noel-Baker: The President got the Rolls-Royce

Mr. Butler: Under another heading, there is a grant to the Governor of Burma to cover special expenses, including £108 spent on his journey from Burma home. I do not wish to go into the details, because we on this side of the Committee would like to pay a very great tribute to the work of the late Governor of Burma. I would only like to say that, had this Supplementary Estimate been for a greater amount we should have conceded it with the same satisfaction. We consider that the final work done by this Governor not only showed a high order of diplomacy and great efficiency, but great experience among the Burmese people, and we think this is an entirely proper gesture and we warmly support the Supplementary Estimate.
Now I come to a rather larger issue, and that is this decision of the British Government to give £20,000 to the British Red Cross Society The original facts of this matter were set out in an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman on 18th December. I then noticed from his answer that the total number of refugees coming from East to West Punjab, and vice versa, was 8,500,000 or thereabouts. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion said that the Government were making great efforts, but he had no details to give to the House. It was interesting to hear from the right hon. Gentleman today that the figures in question have gone up, according to his latest information, and are now 10 million persons, with an unspecified number of those having perished on the way


The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, realises that in the whole history of India and her many invasions from the North, one wave following after another, there has never been such a story as this. In all in the invasions of the past, and with all the adventurers who came into India, such a tragedy as this never took place. This figure is five times that of the movement of persons which took place in the Greco-Turkish episode, in which the right hon. Gentleman himself was involved.
The Committee will therefore see that we are dealing with something of staggering proportions, and there are many of us who desire to help the Government with the prosecution of their Indian policy, whatever our views may be. We have no opportunity to do so while in Opposition, and, sitting at home, unable to help, we have been looking for some method of helping without interfering, because this is clearly a matter which falls within the power of the two Dominion Governments. We therefore welcome this device of helping the British Red Cross Society, but we must not conceal from the Government our view that this is a small sum of money compared to the magnitude of the tragedy, and the very agency chosen, noble though it is, has only limited powers of mitigating some of the great suffering in these areas at the present moment.
Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when this matter is reviewed from time to time—and if the figures of the refugees go u to the alarming extent which appeared from his speech this afternoon, namely, as estimated, by 1,500,000, since 18th December—the Government would be prepared to reconsider this matter, and to decide whether they cannot make a further grant available to the British Red Cross Society, and, at the same time, consider other methods of mitigating the evil and distress by simply offering help, and not in the desire to interfere in the present troubles.
I do not think this country can escape a sense of responsibility for what has happened. That is why I think I am quite within reasonable bounds in requesting the Government to consider any further help that can be given. It was partly due to the manner in which the final transferences of power took place that these tragedies occurred. It was due, in our

view, partly to the speed with which the matter was carried out. I cannot attribute complete responsibility to any man, but I can say that upon this country there rests a distinct sense of responsibility. Therefore, it is essential that, in considering the amount to be granted, we should be as generous as possible and use every possible means of giving help where help is needed.
The Committee may have in its mind some picture of the tragedies that have occurred. Many of these people have left their ancestral holdings in which they spent their lives with only what they could carry, and driving before them selected heads from their herds of livestock, a mixture of peoples, shopkeepers, artisans, village menials, once supposedly rich landlords, business men, lawyers, and doctors, all in one great river of humanity, such a river as even Kipling never described on the Grand Trunk Road in "Kim." This picture has lived with many of us. We have thought of the convoys, followed, as they always inevitably are in the East, by the village dogs and other animals. We have thought of them, of the losses on the way, of the halts at night, of the smell of the smoke and of the dusty road which many of us remember from our early days in that great country. We have felt deeply moved that the conclusion of British rule in India should have been marked by such scenes.
It is, therefore, with great feeling, that I, personally say that I trust that we in this country—and I am putting it on a basis of country, not of party or sides of this Committee—will realise our responsibilities, and will do our best to help the Dominion Governments who have done so much. I should like to say that, so far as I know, these Dominion Governments, within the severe limitations placed upon them, have done their best to deal with a problem of staggering proportions.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Wyatt: I am very much in agreement with almost everything which the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A Butler) has said, although I thought it a pity that he marred the otherwise agreeable tenor of his remarks by the references he made, towards the end of his speech, when discussing the grant in aid to the British Red Cross Society. I do not think that anybody on this side of the Committee


would think that the sum of £20,000 was too high; I think we would all agree with him that it was, of course, far too low. I should be as glad as he if the Government would reconsider that figure, would consider giving more to the British Red Cross Society for relief work in the Punjab, and would investigate the possibility of other ways, or other agencies, by which they could contribute to help in that relief work without, in any sense, seeming to interfere with those internal affairs which properly fall within the province of these two Dominion Governments.
But the right hon. Gentleman was very wide of the mark when he said that we have a great measure of responsibility for those disasters, and that they were worsened by the speed with which the transfer of power was conducted, and in suggesting, as he did, that we could, of course, have gone much more slowly, and thus avoided this appalling catastrophe in the Punjab. I do not wish to minimise that catastrophe; in fact, it would be impossible to do so, and childish even to try; but it would be a great pity if it went out from this Committee this afternoon that in its considered opinion it was owing to the rush job performed by the Viceroy and the Government that the catastrophe happened.
If the right hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back to the situation in India a few months before 15th August, he will surely remember—because he has made a great study of the problem—that the British civil servants and the British element in the Civil Service were fast breaking down at that time. It was not a question of saying, "Let us go more slowly; let us wait a few years," but a question of being able to hand over while we still had something to hand over, and while we were still in control, and could reasonably and properly hand over to the Governments of Pakistan and India. As he well knows, the situation had gone so far that, if we were going to delay any longer, it would have meant an entirely new approach towards the Indian problem which would have involved sending out vast numbers of replacements for the Civil Service, and the rebuilding of our whole structure in India, which had run down and was near its end. It is wrong to say that we rushed the job of handing over that structure.
Had we not done it then, there would have been no structure to hand over.
It is a great pity, after the very charming and just tribute which the right hon. Gentleman paid to Sir Hubert Rance the Governor of Burma, for the delicacy and skilful diplomacy with which he terminated our connection with Burma, that he should, by implication, have suggested that such was not the case in regard to the present Governor-General of India, because, no doubt, the final arrangements were very largely undertaken on the initiative of the Viceroy. He was the person on the spot who could best judge how matters were proceeding, and who could give the advice, which he doubtless gave, to His Majesty's Government that it was a situation he could no longer control, and that, unless we handed over then, an entirely new attitude would have to be adopted towards India, which would have involved us remaining there for to or 15 years longer.

Mr. Butler: I think the hon. Member is making a very fine, but somewhat exaggerated case. I would never have considered staying in India for that length of time. All I ventured to suggest was that it is very unbecoming for us to sit back and to say that we have no sense of responsibility for the tragedy—a responsibility which I certainly feel myself.

Mr. Wyatt: I am very glad of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention because in his speech he went much farther than that. Perhaps I am replying in an exaggerated way because I am replying to an exaggerated case. If that is so, the fault is, in the first place, with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am bound to answer the charges he made. The gravamen of his charge was that, owing to the speed with which we rushed the transfer of power in the concluding months, this disaster was so much greater than it might otherwise have been. Of course, if he now says that he does not mean that, then I accept his withdrawal.

Mr. Butler: I would only say that I do not regret a single word I have said; I stand by everything I said. At the same time, I do not think the hon. Gentleman need exaggerate his case, although he is perfectly at liberty to make his case. I am not so self-satisfied as some of the people who have been respon-


sible for these matters, which I personally feel very deeply.

Mr. Wyatt: I quite appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not feel self-satisfied about the situation in which we finally handed over our power in India; nor do I. The case I am trying to make, however, is one which answers his charge that it was owing to the manner in which we rushed this business that the disaster was so great in the Punjab. I am only trying to show that it was not. In point of fact, as he and I both well know, the roots of the Indian problem lie much deeper and further back than that. One might easily say that if correct action had been taken in the period between 1920 and 1930, none of this trouble would have happened at all and that there would not even have been a partition between Pakistan and India. However, I do not wish to digress any further on that point. I hope I have said sufficient to rebut the charge which the right hon. Gentleman has made.
In my view, Lord Mountbatten, the present Governor-General of India, is just as much entitled to the thanks of this Committee as Sir Hubert Rance, the Governor of Burma, and anything which we can do, particularly by increasing the rather paltry sum of £20,000 which has been given to the British Red Cross Society, and by extending our help to the people of India in the great suffering which they have undergone—almost inevitably owing to the circumstances of the situation in the Punjab—should be done by this Committee, or, at any rate, by His Majesty's Government at the request of this Committee. I hope the Government will do so.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I do not wish to enter into an argument with the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) as to whether or not our evacuation of India was a rush job. I will content myself by saying that I feel no sense of pride whatever in it. What is more, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), when I think of these millions of hapless, wretched individuals going along the roads of India as a result of this exchange of populations, I cannot just wash my hands of it and say "That has nothing whatever to do with us." That is why I support this sum of money

for the Red Cross, and if we had been asked for more I think the Committee would have agreed.
There is one remark which the Secretary of State made when he introduced this item, which may cause some misgiving throughout the world if it goes out as I understand he said it. The words which I think he used were: "Luckily there was not so much loss of life as was feared." With half a million people dead—

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is precisely the figure I am challenging. I do not think the figure was anything like half a million.

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman should be in a much better position to know than anybody in this Committee. If the figure is not half a million, what is it? There have been statements by the irrefutable Press all over the world to the effect that it was considerably more than half a million. Whether it is half a million or something slightly less than that, I think the phrase "not so much loss of life as was feared" is a pretty airy-fairy way of dealing with a tragedy of this magnitude.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the point he raises is important. I did not in the least mean to deal with this matter in an airy manner. I was, of course, referring to a statement made by Lord Mountbatten when he was here in November, in which he said that the probable figure was more like 50,000 than half a million. I do not think anybody really knows what the figure was, because the losses occurred partly in small killings and partly by sickness and disease on the roads as the refugees moved. I think most good judges of the case accept the tact that the figure is very much less than half a million, which figure was widely used at one time and almost universally believed. I thought it had been understood that that was no longer accepted.

Mr. Gammans: Whether it is half a million or something less is immaterial to the point which I am trying to make; namely, that if the number of people who died as a result of this forced evacuation runs into anything like what we consider, it is a pretty poor state of affairs when it goes out from a member of His Majesty's Government that that figure "is not as much loss of life as was feared." When the right hon. Gentleman and his


friends were recommending their policy to Parliament, if he had said that as a result of this policy 10 million wretched individuals would be trooping along the roads of India and that an unspecified number would lay down their lives, I do not know that we should have accepted it quite so readily as we did. I think it is unfortunate that a remark of that sort should be made by a responsible Minister of the Crown. I would support the right hon. Gentleman if he were to ask for an additional sum as grant in aid for the Red Cross.
I would like to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden said about uncovenanted services. That subject has been brought up in the India Debate and in the Burma Debate. I do not feel that we have had from His Majesty's Government, either then or now, anything like the assurance which we are entitled to expect. We certainly owe a deep moral obligation to those people. They and men like them have served the Crown for many years past, and it would be a disgraceful thing if we should try to evade our responsibilities to them by any sort of legal quibble.
The other point I want to raise is in regard to Burma. I imagine that this is the last Estimate for Burma which we shall ever consider. Therefore, in one sense, it is like the cost of buying a wreath. What about the payments for war damage? Should they not appear somewhere in these Estimates? What is the position of people in Burma who deliberately destroyed their property, at the instance not of the Government of Burma but of the British military authorities? That loss runs into a large sum of money. What is the legal position? Is it, as we were given to understand some time ago, that they have to make their claims against the Government of Burma? Is it not right that there should be, at any rate, some token sum in these Estimates so that they would know exactly where they stand? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to deal with that point, and also on this question of the uncovenanted services, that he will be able to give an absolute and firm pledge that we shall stand by these people whatever may happen to them.

4.38 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I do not want to traverse the ground which

was completely covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), but there is a special point with regard to the non-Secretary of State's services which I wish to put to the Minister. It concerns those in the service of the railways, who were engaged by the old companies which are remaining in the service of the two Governments. I have not had any complaints about the actual position to date, but I understand that those employees have been warned that they will not be eligible for promotion, because all the higher posts will go to Indians.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think the railway services come within the purview of any of these Estimates The Estimates appear to refer to the Civil Service. It is not competent to raise a question which does not come within the Estimates before the Committee. If the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) will forgive me for saying so, I do not think the question of war damage comes within the purview of these Estimates either.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Surely such questions as that come under the heading of the High Commissioner's salary?

The Chairman: No, I do not think so. I do not think he has any responsibility. No doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I think he is merely a representative of this country in that country, and he is not responsible for past events.

Mr. Nicholson: With great respect, Major Milner, he is not there merely to discuss questions of trade. He is there as the representative of His Majesty's Government to look after the interests of United Kingdom nationals in the two Dominions, and I submit that it is within the purview of his work, and that we shall have no other opportunity of discussing it.

The Chairman: We are now discussing Supplementary Estimates. The question which the hon. Gentleman raised may or may not be a matter under the Estimates proper, but we are dealing only with the specific matters covered by these Supplementary Estimates. It is quite clear that we cannot discuss general policy.

Sir S. Reed: I thank the Chairman for his Ruling and I will find some other opportunity of bringing forward the point I wished to make. An appeal has been made not only to vote this £20,000 for the Red Cross but, at a later stage, if the Government so propose, to consider extending that up to the very maximum of our resources, grim as the position is today. On the question of mortality, I hope the estimate given by the Minister—about 50,000—is somewhere near the mark. I must say, knowing something of the unspeakable miseries of these migrations, even in less tragic circumstances, when death comes from hunger, disease, epidemics and in other forms, that I am convinced, in my own mind, that if ever an accurate estimate is made, it will be very far in excess of the numbers that have been given to the Minister.
I am sorry that any impression of responsibility, other than our responsibility for common humanity, has been raised over this matter. Anybody who knows about these Indian villagers, and about the Punjab, could not be other than profoundly moved at these great migrations, with these tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands moving from East to West. I do not think anything in history, except the migration of the Chinese into Manchuria, over several years, although definitely organised, was on such a scale as this, with anything like the enormous sacrifices entailed. I hope, therefore, we shall keep vividly before our minds the suffering and the misery which our former fellow subjects—indeed, our fellow subjects today—are experiencing.
We should gladly devote this sum to the very best means to which it can be spent, and that is to the Red Cross, which has no political or administrative affiliations. We should devote as much as we can afford when the time comes, if the demand is made by the Government, in token of our affection and gratitude to India after our long connection with her, and should discharge the obligation which we owe, not because of any political reason—that should never have been mentioned—but because of the need for the relief of human misery and suffering. On that, I am sure, we shall find ourselves agreed this afternoon, and on a later occasion, if need be.

4.43 P.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I would like to associate myself with everything that has been said on both sides of the House about the desirability of the Red Cross grant, and about considering whether it should not perhaps be increased, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentlemen this question. Is it not, in fact, the case that voluntary contributions have gone from this country in excess of that amount, and is he also aware that contributions greatly in excess of that amount have been made by British individuals and institutions, both in India and in Pakistan? This is by no means the measure of the help which has already gone from citizens of this country.
The second point I wish to raise is in connection with the High Commissioner's establishment. I notice that, if one totals up the £160,000—odd for the High Commissioner of India—I think that applies only to seven months—it come approximately to £280,000 for 12 months, and I would sympathise if the right hon. Gentleman has any intention to increase that should the necessity arise. I would point out to the Committee that the total for our representation in Egypt is £350,000—and between Egypt and this country the trade is not as much as it is between India and this country. Although this sum of £280,000 may seem enormous, we have to bear in mind, as a Committee, the need of helping our trade and keeping our prestige as a people before the people of India.
I would like to ask him also, in this connection, whether he is absolutely satisfied that the allowances paid to members of the High Commissioner's staff are sufficient, bearing in mind the tremendous rise in the cost of living in all parts of India, and bearing in mind, too, the terrible difficulties which are experienced by anyone in India, particularly of non-Indian origin, in finding accommodation where he may live alone—and certainly the tremendous difficulty in finding accommodation for himself and his wife? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that and I am sure, too, the Committee would support the right hon. Gentleman if he found it necessary to increase the allowances. I would like to come to the matter which has already been mentioned, and that is, the position of the non-Secretary of State's civil servants, about whom, I


understand the High Commissioner is, or may soon be, in negotiation with the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan. Perhaps I might put a question or two to the Minister. Has there been any discussion between the High Commissioner and either of the two Dominions upon the position of these civil servants—servants of the Government of India or of the Government of Pakistan—following the experience which the two Dominions have had since the handing over of power on 15th August? Reference was made by my right hon. Friend to a speech made by the Minister of Transport, Dr. Mathia, in which he said:
In the public interest it is necessary now to build up as quickly as possible a reserve of Indian officers with the training and experience required for holding key positions on the railways This cannot be done overnight Therefore, a beginning in this direction must be made immediately We propose, therefore, that, when vacancies arise hereafter in key positions, preference should be given definitely to Indian officers of proved ability, irrespective of considerations of seniority This would necessarily imply that individual claims of senior non Indian officers would in some cases be overlooked
When I put that point in a supplementary question last Thursday the Minister said, of course, it was a matter to be considered. The question is, have there been any discussions between the High Commissioner and the Governments of the two Dominions about that point?
The second point I would put is this. Since Lord Wave11's Question, in another place, has there been any discussion about the issuing, by either the Government of India or the Government of Pakistan, of a proportionate pension to the civil servants of British, or non-Indian or non-Pakistan origin, who may feel it is better to retire in the circumstances—to one of which I have already referred? I understand—it may not be correct—that the Government of Pakistan are far more amenable to the suggestion that a proportionate pension should be paid than are the Government of India. Perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would tell us a little about this. My last question about the position of these men is this. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Government of Burma thought it right, in view of all the circumstances, to give to men in the same position in Burma a resettlement grant of £500. Has that suggestion been discussed with either the Government of India or the Government of Pakistan?
I have always felt that we in this Committee and in the House of Commons owe a definite moral obligation to these men. I know that that has been denied frequently by His Majesty's Government. I think it has been quite wrongly denied. I would stress once again the fact that these men originally took service under the Government of India—and not directly under the Secretary of State—for which the House of Commons had a responsibility. I would stress the fact that they have lost prospects in that service directly as a result of action taken by His Majesty's Government in this country, action which has been approved by the House of Commons and by this Committee. Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? Perhaps he cannot come to a final decision yet; but if he will reconsider the whole position as it is now, and as it has arisen since 15th August, surely he must come to the decision that more has yet to be done for these men who were servants of the Government of India and who may yet be servants of the Government of India or of the Government of Pakistan. These are matters which, I believe, the High Commissioners will be discussing, or have discussed already.
I close by emphasising to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee the enormous difficulties which face the representatives of His Majesty's Government in both Dominions at this time. Everyone with whom I have come in contact who has been in either Dominion speaks very highly of what has been done there. I should like here to interpose a word of praise of the right hon. Gentleman's office, from my own experience of the way in which his office have handled compensation. I think no praise can be too high for that. There are still many questions outstanding. There are bound to be difficult questions outstanding because of the transfer to Pakistan. Many of the questions concern individuals in this country, and concern money which they have saved in provident funds, money which is due to them in pensions, or, perhaps in some other way, from either of the two Governments. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to help the High Commissioners in getting for the men who served the Indian people as well as the people


of this country so well, and who have now returned to this country, their just and due savings and rewards.

4.55 P.m.

Lord John Hope: I want very briefly to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the specific plight of some men of the non-Secretary of State's Services—the men of the Bengal Ferry Pilots' Association. I was in touch with the right hon. Gentleman's Department about this matter while he was away. Their position is not a bit satisfactory. I hope today to obtain some enlightenment from the Secretary of State about the future—

The Chairman: Do I understand that the people of whom the noble Lord is speaking are civil servants? If they are not, it is not in Order to raise this matter.

Lord John Hope: They were originally appointed by the High Commissioner. Under subhead O is the High Commissioner's salary, and under subhead A the salary of the Secretary of State. So, I submit, I am entitled to raise the matter now.

The Chairman: Unless it is a matter for the High Commissioner or one of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State on these Supplementary Estimates, the noble Lord is not entitled to raise the question now. Perhaps he may raise it on the main Estimates: I do not know. The only item before us now on which it seems to be appropriate is that which refers to civil servants. If these men are civil servants, then the matter concerning them may be raised now; but if they are not, then this matter cannot be raised now.

Lord John Hope: I think I have no alternative then, Major Milner, but to resume my seat, hoping that what I have lacked in constructive contribution I have gained in brevity.

The Chairman: And in the approbation of the Chair.

4.57 P.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I want to ask about the re-employment of the people who have been displaced and to know how the work of re-employing them is progressing, because we are all anxious about it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to issue

certificates about re-employment in general for those from both the covenanted and the uncovenanted services The High Commissioners have a great task to undertake. They are representatives of His Majesty's Government in the Dominions of India and Pakistan. Their duties will fall under two heads. One will be to look after the interests, as all diplomatic representatives have to do, of United Kingdom nationals, of whom there will be many who will be employed a long time in the two Dominions, for the desire of both Dominions to have British technical advisers must be great. Their other main duty will be concerned with trade and commercial relationships between this country and the two Dominions.
I think it is an appropriate moment to call attention to the fact that a good deal hangs upon the commercial and economic assistance we give to the two Dominions, particularly Pakistan, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will call the attention of his colleagues most concerned to the fact that Pakistan is in need of British capital goods. Whatever privation it may cost us in this country I am sure the investment of British capital goods in Pakistan will be a sound investment and will be amply repaid. I am shocked at the sum of money voted for the expenses of the two High Commissioners' offices, which is relatively so small. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that their work is concerned with a large part of the globe inhabited by 400 million people. I am sure that any suggestion for voting greater sums for these offices will be supported with acclamation by the Committee.
You have not allowed us, Major Milner, to touch upon the uncovenanted services, but I should like to reinforce the remarks that have been made about the people concerned. I will also touch on something which is out of Order, for I know that you will permit me to do so when you hear what it is. It is a serious subject. This is the first occasion on which we have debated India since India and Pakistan became Dominions, and I think it appropriate that at least one hon. Member should say something which will be echoed by all hon. Members, and that is how much we share with India and Pakistan their grief at the death of Mr. Gandhi, who performed great work for


the cause of conciliation in India. I have said enough, because I know it is out of Order, but I hoped, Major Milner, that you would permit me to say that

The Chairman: That matter is clearly out of Order now and tribute has, in fact, been paid to Mr. Gandhi.

Mr. Nicholson: I am sorry if I overstepped the mark. I merely wanted to say that, if any Dominion of His Majesty is plunged into grief, we in this Committee wish to he associated with them.

5.1 p.m

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am most grateful for the tone of the speeches made this afternoon. I will do my best to answer the specific questions which have been put to me, but if I do not give full satisfaction I hope hon. Members will extend to me their indulgence. I commence with three general observations which arise out of the speech of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I wish to associate myself fully with what be said about our gratitude to the Government of Burma for their general attitude in the drawing up of the treaty which we made. I want to associate myself, too, with the tribute which was paid by him and others to the work of the former Governor of Burma, Sir Hubert Rance Third, I consider that the work of Indian Civil Service has been one of the great governmental achievements of human history.

Mr. R. A. Butler: One of the Minister's hon. Friends was trying to suggest that I sought to draw a distinction between certain English administrators in the East, simply because I mentioned only Sir Hubert Rance The reason I mentioned Sir Hubert Rance was that he was specifically mentioned in the Supplementary Estimates, whereas others were not. I hope it will not go out that we are trying to draw distinctions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sure the Committee will be clear on that. There is one small point, of which I should like to dispose before turning to the larger subjects. I was asked whether any arrangements had been made for dealing with war damage suffered by British interests in Burma. The question of liability for war damage was raised during the negotiations which led up to the Burma Treaty. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach agreement, and the matter

has been reserved for further discussions between the two Governments. It has not been forgotten.
The first major question raised by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden was the re-employment of members of the Secretary of State's Services in India and Burma The right hon. Member again outlined the machinery which I described in a written answer on 11th December fast. I made that answer very full in the hope that it would help the men who were looking for new appointments; and I have every reason to think that it has helped them. As he indicated, in my Department we have a special branch which deals with policy, with vacancies in permanent Government service, with openings in the Foreign Office, and openings in the Colonial Office and their services abroad. In the London Appointments Office of the Ministry of Labour we have a special India and Burma Services Section which deals with temporary Government employment, public corporations and business firms. Under the Ministry of Labour at York House, we also have a Technical and Scientific Register, where an officer with Indian experience interviews members of the Indian engineer, railway and forest services, and does what he can to help. Then we have the unofficial committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for the City of London, to which the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden himself also belongs, which has done admirable work in trying to find vacancies for men whose cases are brought to their attention by the different Government agencies which we have set up.

Mr. R. A. Butler: For the sake of accuracy, may I say the chairman is the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson).

Captain Marsden: Now safely out of the way.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The right hon. Member is quite right. The number of men who have so far registered for re-employment is about 800. Of those, we have had intimations from 78 that their present desire is to continue in the service of India and Pakistan, and they probably will do so. We believe that, of the 800, the number intending to stay on in the service of India and Pakistan is a great deal larger than 78, although they have not let us know. Of the remainder, whatever


the figure may be, 406 have actually had appointments; and it is believed that within the next month between 50 and 75 more will get what they want.

Mr. Nicholson: Is this both convenanted and unconvenanted services?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, this is only the Secretary of State's Services. I will come to the others later. I am afraid experience has shown that it is very much easier to help officers who are under 48 years of age than to help those who are over that age. Indeed, with those under 48 we have made extremely good progress. We do not despair about the others, and we make every effort we can to help them. For my part, I believe that, as their qualifications become better known, we ought to be able to find work for them in a Britain which needs workers of all kinds.
I was asked specially about the Indian Police and the Burma Frontier Service. Again, we have been able to offer those under 48 years of age reasonable alternative employment. We hope that if the present prospects continue, and if they like the kinds of jobs offered to them, a considerable proportion of those under 48 will be settled by this summer. Unfortunately, the people in the engineer and forest services are mostly between the ages of 48 and 55, for whom, as I have said, it has proved very difficult to find jobs, though we do not despair The right hon. Member asked me whether the creation of more agencies would assist. I do not think so. I think the agencies are now quite rationally organised, and are well known to the men in question. Perhaps we can make even greater efforts than we have made. Certainly I will consider very favourably the proposal just made by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), that we should make periodic returns of the results achieved. That might be useful to everybody.
The question of proportionate pensions for non-Secretary of State's Services officers who want to retire was raised by the right hon. Member and by nearly every other hon. Member who spoke. The Committee knows that shortly before the transfer of power the Governor-General and the Provincial Governors tried to obtain the agreement of their respective Governments

to the granting of proportionate pensions to officers of the Central and Provincial Services who did not wish to continue to serve after the constitutional change had been made. In Bengal the Government agreed that proportionate pensions should be granted to both European and Anglo-Indian officers whom they did not wish to keep, and who did not wish to stay on. However, the Central Government and the other Provincial Governments took a different line—

Lord John Hope: Since the Minister has mentioned it, could he say whether that includes the Bengal Ferry Pilots Association?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid I could not, without notice; and I am not sure that I should be in Order if I could.
The Central Government and the other Provincial Governments took a different line. They said they could see no justification for granting pensions to officers who were unwilling to stay on, although they had a guarantee that the conditions of service would not be changed. It must be remembered that these officers have always been subject to the control of the Governments by whom they were appointed. It must be remembered that they never had the right to retire on proportionate pensions. Therefore, so long as there is the guarantee that their conditions are not to change, the case for demanding proportionate pensions for those whom the Governments wish to keep is clearly not very strong, and so far no evidence of any breach of that guarantee has been received.
The Government are of the opinion that the new Governments which employ these men should give a proportionate pension to officers whose services they do not wish to retain, or to officers whose conditions of service are materially altered to their disadvantage. When I say that, I hope that no one will think that I am interfering in the relations of the new Governments and those who serve them. We have, of course, a delicate problem in considering what we should do, supposing that there was clear and unmistakable evidence—and I repeat that we have received no such evidence—that the conditions were changed. In that case, it might hardly be reasonable to expect that the European members of the services would stay on.
As for the Minister of Transport's speech, to which reference has been made, I am afraid that the full and precise implications of it are not entirely clear to me, or, I think, to many members of the Committee. The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is at present either in Karachi or Delhi—he is going to Delhi in any case, if he is not there yet—and he is going to discuss the matter with the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Butler: While the Under-Secretary is there, can he also discuss the case of the Bengal ferry pilots?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will certainly ask him urgently to consider that.

Mr. Low: It is all very well—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): I understand that this subject has been ruled out of Order by the Chairman.

Mr. Low: I did not intend to speak on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought the implications of the Minister of Transport's speech were not quite clear. That is all very diplomatic, but surely the implications are absolutely clear? He says that events would:
necessarily imply that individual claims of senior non-Indian officers would in some cases be overlooked.
I do not challenge the Indian Government's right to do that, but surely it is a fact which ought to be taken into consideration?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We shall, of course, take it into consideration, but the hon. Member will agree that I should probably do well not to add anything further, especially as the Under-Secretary of State is to discuss this matter with the Minister himself.
I come now to another matter, raised by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, which is also rather delicate, namely, the position of the European judges of India and Pakistan, and the question of compensation and proportionate pension for them. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have come to the conclusion that those European judges, who may resign in consequence of changed conditions, should be eligible for proportionate pensions, and that compensation also is due in those cases where a substantial part of the

expected period of service has been lost. I add that consideration is now being given to what ought to be the amounts and conditions of award.
I pass now to the staff of the High Commissions in India and Pakistan. In answer to the first specific question put by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, I can tell him that there will be a Deputy High Commissioner at New Delhi; he will take the place of the High Commissioner if he has to go on leave, or if he should be away in other parts of India on his duties. The highest salary among the Deputy Commissioners will be paid to the man who is at Calcutta, in view of the great importance of the post. In Pakistan, the representative at Peshawar will not be a Deputy High Commissioner, although the other two will be. The Committee have shown generosity in regard to what I said about the probable increase in the scales of the staff. I am particularly indebted to hon. Members who have shown conclusively that the scale of our missions is very modest, considering that they have to deal with British interests in countries containing 400 million people, which is about one-fifth of the human race. We must also remember that not only have we an immense trade with India and Pakistan, which is now vital to our economic reconstruction, but we also have tens of thousands of people from the British Isles who intend to remain there, and may be looking to our High Commissioners for help. It may well be that we shall have to give higher allowances to those who are employed in these missions. It is true that the cost of living is very great, that the difficulties of finding lodgings is almost unbelievable, and that the hardships which members of the missions have had to put up with have been very considerable. I again associate the Government, as warmly as I can, with the tributes which have been paid to the admirable work these missions have done during the past very trying months.
I come now to the refugees and the work of the British Red Cross Society, and to the question of the very small sum for which we have asked. I regard the events of recent months as being one of the great tragedies of history. I hope that nothing I have said can lead anyone to think differently from that. I agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) that our primary responsibility


arises out of our common humanity with the peoples of India and Pakistan. I cannot accept what the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden said about responsibility for the events which have taken place, nor would he expect me to do so. I agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury that we had better not pursue that question tonight. There were terrible events, and communal terrorism very nearly got out of control. The Governments of India and Pakistan acted together with great courage and understanding, and they got it under control again—I think that that deserves to be remembered.
As I indicated when I opened the Debate, we offered the British Red Cross Society only a token gift. We should all have wished that the gift was very much larger, but it is merely a symbol of the affection the people of this country feel for the peoples of Pakistan and India. The Government considered giving a very much larger sum, but we came to the conclusion that it was really not a very reasonable proposition to ask Parliament to vote a large sum of money for this purpose, when we owed to India and Pakistan something like £1,000 million, which we shall be able to repay only very gradually over a period of years.

Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman has said that we "owe" India this enormous sum. Is it clear that we do owe this sum? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman ought to qualify that statement?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not want to complicate the issue of the sterling balances in India, but it is well known that we have on the books a large debt which is against us and in their favour.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden asked me if I could say anything about broad general policy, and whether we were now considering making treaties with India and Pakistan such as we have made with some other countries. I would not, on this occasion, think it appropriate for me to answer that question in any detail, but I would say this: we want to do everything we can to further good understanding and effective co-operation between our Government and the Governments of India and Pakistan. We have, of course, been considering our financial relations in the recent past, and no doubt an announcement will be made about that matter in the early future. On the broader questions of

defence and general relations, I think it is desirable that things should settle down a little more in the sub-Continent before we proceed to tackle the large problems of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. I would end by expressing the desire of the entire Committee that our relations with both India and Pakistan will continue to be warm and friendly, that their relations between themselves will be the same, and that they will work in co-operation for their common good and the benefit of the world.

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman made a remark just now which, without qualification, may lead to a tremendous amount of misunderstanding both here and in India and Pakistan. When he says that this country owed £1,000 million, does he mean that His Majesty's Government have surrendered any right to put in a counter-claim, or are admitting that without any qualification?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I did not mean that, but I do not think I had better add to the explanation I have given.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would like to thank the Minister for his statement about the judges. For a long time we have been asking that judges should have the right to retire on proportionate pension and be eligible for these terms of compensation. As I understand it, the Minister has now conceded the case and we are much obliged. It should not be thought that by pressing this case we are asking the judges to give up their responsibility in India; no words of mine should be interpreted as a desire that they should withdraw from service in India if they feel that they can continue to serve in that country. I sincerely trust that while the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to say more about our relations with the two Dominions on a treaty basis, we shall not lose sight of this question and that, meanwhile, every step will be taken to bring relations more closely together, which has been the object of all of us today. I will not go into the question of balances because I do not believe that that is any more in Order than the question of the Bengal Ferry Pilots' Association.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I say that I am in full agreement with the words which fell from him about the judges.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Burma and certain salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, including the salary of the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations; and for sundry India and Burma services, including compensation payments and other expenses arising out of the setting up of the independent Dominions of India and Pakistan and the grant of independence to Burma, certain expenses in the Persian Gulf and certain grants in aid.

CLASS IV

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,781,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

5.23 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): In asking the Committee to approve this Supplementary Estimate, I think Members will be mainly interested in the two subheads referred to as subhead E and subhead H6. Subhead E deals with the additional provision required for the further education and training scheme. The original Estimate under this head was for nearly £10 million. Inevitably, this was something of a shot in the dark, because we cannot accurately estimate in advance the number of new awards which will need to be made. Our estimates for the financial year have to be prepared some 16 months in advance, and while we can then make a reasonable estimate of the cost of continuing awards, we can only make an intelligent guess as to the number of new awards.
The Committee will, I feel, be glad to know that we have made, under this scheme, over 54,000 awards, of which over 40,000 are still current. This compares—and I give this merely as a comparison to show the work done, and not to draw a moral—with about 26,500 awards made after the 1914–1918 war. That shows the size of the job that has

to be undertaken. About half this number of awards—some 27,000—have been made in 1947. Because of the speed up of demobilisation the scheme has tended to reach its peak rather sooner than was originally expected, and I should think that after next autumn the number of new applications will begin to decline. At the moment we are still receiving new applications at the rate of 300 to 500 a week.
During the past year the procedure for paying grants has been streamlined, and the criticisms which were made in the House in the autumn and winter of 1946–47 have been practically eliminated. Indeed, we are now receiving congratulatory letters, and as I think this is almost unprecedented I ought to give the Committee a sample of the type of letter that is being received. Here is one which comes from Sussex and, therefore, cannot be associated with my native county. The writer says:
I would like to take this opportunity of thanking you for the speed and lack of 'red tape' with which your Department has handled my application
When in these days so much is being said about "red tape" that, I think, ought to go on the record. Here is another letter which comes from Manchester, and which I could not resist quoting to the Committee:
I want to take this opportunity of stating my appreciation of the help which this Scheme has been to me. Further than that, I wish to say how grateful I am to the people concerned in your Department for the prompt and efficient way in which they have despatched cheques and answered any inquiries
As one who comes from Lancashire, I like that phrase "despatched cheques." Perhaps that is responsible for the congratulatory note.

Mr. Cove: Are there any letters from Wales?

Mr. Tomlinson: There are so many from Wales that I did not dare to bring them along. From two points of view I am convinced that the Committee will regard this additional £1,781,000 for which we are now asking as a good investment. It is good from the point of view of the State, because it will help to ensure a supply of men and women trained to occupy important positions in the professional, industrial, and commercial life of the country. From the point of view of the individual, I would emphasise


that, in dealing with these awards, we treat each case as an individual human problem. This expenditure enables us to make good opportunities which men and women have lost as a result of their service during the war. I may, perhaps, be forgiven fore quoting from another letter which, I think, demonstrates that we are interpreting what was our duty under this scheme when it was originally introduced. The letter comes from Purley in Surrey. It states:
I am much obliged to you for your letter of 13th February with regard to my son, David, and the grant under the further Education and Training scheme. If you will allow me to say so, I do not think that I have ever seen such a sympathetic letter from any Government Department before. If this is the way in which the Awards Branch of the Ministry of Education works, all I can say is that it is most admirable.
The letter concludes:
Many thanks.
I have quoted that letter not in order that the Ministry of Education might receive any kudos, but because I wanted to pay my testimony to the staff who have been responsible for the administration of this scheme and to the human way in which they have carried out their duties.
Under subhead H.6—grant in aid to the Victoria and Albert Museum for the purchase of the contents of Ham House—the sum involved is £90,000. Here, again, I think that we have an investment that will contribute to the interest and education of future generations. The house contains an unrivalled collection of 17th century furniture and other works of art. Since the contents were considered to be worth about £150,000 in 1930, I think that there is no doubt that the nation is being well served at the present price of £90,000. There is one other item on that side of the ledger to which I would call attention. That is teachers' pensions. It looks a large sum of money to ask for in a Supplementary Estimate, but this additional expenditure could not be included in the original Estimate, as the Act of 1947 increasing pensions had not then been passed. This is called for because of that Act of Parliament.
Turning to the opposite side of the ledger, I think that I should refer to two of the savings that we expect to make on our original Estimate. The first is under subhead D.2—grants and loans in respect of aided and special agreement

schools. This refers to an expenditure which could be incurred by making grants and loans to the managers and governors of voluntary schools under Sections 102 to 105 of the 1944 Act. The reason we expect savings under this heading is that under present circumstances, labour and materials are not available for making as many improvements to existing voluntary schools or for building as many new aided and special agreement schools as we would like. The other saving, under subhead M of £168,000 is on repayments to the Ministry of Works for temporary school accommodation. The saving under this heading is due to the fact that the H.O.R.S.A. programme has fallen behind schedule.
The main reason for the delay has been, as the Committee know, the shortage of labour both on the building side and on the technical side—shortage of materials and components—and, above all, the fuel crisis of a year ago. This crisis caused a great set-back, but we have overcome its effects and the rate of progress has now been greatly accelerated. On the progress made to date, and provided there is no unforeseen setback such as occurred last year, I think that by next September, when the full effect of the school-leaving age comes to be felt in the schools, the position will be much better than it was last September. While the full programme of the Ministry of Works will not have been completed by that date, it should be possible to provide fairly adequately for all the additional children who will be in the schools as a result of the raising of the school leaving age.
Here, I should say that the delay in completing the Horsa programme has not been the cause of the shortage of accommodation at the lower end of the schools. The increase in the birth rate and the effects of the war would have created difficulties in infant schools whether we had raised the age or not. I shall be glad to answer any question that may be raised with regard to any other item on which Members of the Committee desire information.

The Deputy-chairman (Sir Robert Young): I allowed the Minister to speak on these items of anticipated saving as a matter of explanation, but I must point out that they are not under discussion in the consideration of this Supplementary Estimate.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: My acute mind had observed that. I was hoping, Sir Robert, that after the latitude allowed on the question of savings, I might have been allowed to occupy the attention of the Committee longer, but you have truncated some of my observations by your remarks. I cannot see that there is in the Supplementary Estimates very much that is controversial or in the nature of a gold mine for those of us who enjoy the art of probing Ministers on Supplementary Estimates. I have no doubt, however, that several matters will come up on which we shall want an answer. I congratulate the Minister on carrying on the tradition of the Board of Education as it was in the old days—as an office of great humanity with the minimum of red tape and the ultimate amount of streamlined efficiency. If other Government Departments had such a tradition to carry on, no doubt, the whole administration would be in a much better way.
From the manner in which the Minister read out confidential letters, sent, no doubt, for publication—I do not doubt that—he has before him, in the event of the untimely end of the administration, a perfectly good job as a seller of patent medicines. I feel that he will collect testimonials in exactly the same way and put them out with as much skill as he has done today in supporting his excellent administration. It is a source of great satisfaction to us that the machinery for dealing with the education and training scheme has been so efficiently conducted. There was, as the Committee know, considerable doubt about the procedure before, and it is very satisfactory that these young men and others in receipt of these grants are receiving their money so regularly. We shall watch this matter, but we are satisfied that the position is very much better than it was.
The number of awards to which the Minister has drawn attention is very remarkable. I do not know whether he could break down the figures in any way to show the nature of the occupations for which these candidates are training. I do not want detailed figures, but some idea. I remember that when the present Foreign Secretary and I initiated this scheme—the Foreign Secretary was then Minister of Labour and I was Minister of Education—we tried to give opportunities to

every type of person who wished to go in for training. I should be interested to hear how many ordinands have profited by the extremely generous terms offered by this scheme. If he could give an indication of those going into technical jobs in industry, at the other end, I should be very much obliged.
I have one query which I should like to ask. I have had one or two cases given to me of young ex-Service men who are already qualified as teachers and wish to take a degree. Is it quite impossible for a young man, who has already qualified as a teacher and, therefore, profited by one form of training, to take a degree at a university, which is a laudable ambition, and receive a further grant from the university training scheme?

Mr. Tomlinson: Might I deal with that point at once? That has been prohibited up to now where a teacher has received assistance in order to become a qualified teacher in the first instance.

Mr. Butler: If he has not received assistance he might be considered under this scheme.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes.

Mr. Butler: That is something, and it the Minister in his wisdom and kindness considers using some of this extra money for the purpose I should be grateful, but I must leave it to his own judgment as to whether it is to be carried out or not. The work that is being done by this scheme as a whole must not be underestimated by the Committee. It is a matter of great importance that the scheme should carry on, and I should like to know what sort of outlook the scheme has, because it is all tied up with the rate of demobilisation. If the Minister could give us any indication of the future I should be obliged.
We now come to item H.6, the purchase of Ham House. This imposes upon the Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, for whom the Minister answers, a very heavy responsibility. I am glad that the Government have decided to make this purchase. This house must now be transformed from a private establishment into a public museum, and certainly very great difficulties will arise as the architecture is composed of a series of small rooms which contain many small objects. The house has a great tradition and history. It is said that a particu-


larly rotten form of English Government, namely the Cabal Ministry, met there. If the Minister knows his history as well as the present Home Secretary, who was my associate at the Ministry of Education during the war, knew his, he will know that that Ministry was short-lived. I hope the present Minister of Education is not feeling unduly unhappy at his new acquisition, because it may well carry its traditions with it.
There is rather an interesting series of 17th century furniture in the house, and I hope in the final arrangement the director of the Victoria and Albert Museum will see it is shown to the best possible advantage. The difficulty of shaping private rooms for public exhibition has already been overcome with great success in the Victoria and Albert Museum. I should like to express our confidence in the management of that Museum, and I believe there is no better person than the Director to undertake the showing of this house.
Next comes subhead L.1—pensions for teachers. There is under subhead L.2 an additional sum required to meet the cases of refund of contributions to teachers leaving the profession. On the subject of teachers, may I ask the Minister whether he can give the Committee any statistics in regard to the number of married teachers who will be taking advantage of some of these facilities, to which reference is made in the Supplementary Estimate. If we could get an idea of the retirement of married teachers it would enable us to get more clearly in our heads the whole teacher problem, which in some respects looks very satisfactory. It looks particularly satisfactory in regard to the men, but very unsatisfactory in regard to the recruitment of young women. That is a major problem facing the future of education and educational reform.
If, in fact, the Ministry are estimating for a large number of married teachers to retire, it means that the situation on the women's side of the teaching profession is very serious indeed, and that would affect what the Minister referred to in the concluding stage of his remarks, namely, the infants' school, because I do not think that men, even the gallant ex-Service men who have faced death and danger, would face service in an infants' school. Perhaps the Minister may fall back on what I believe is the case in some

countries, particularly America, where the rather older men are drafted to the infants' school. If he feels that is a possibility he has done something to overcome the difficulty, but it he does not feel that, he must make some observation on the subject of the number of married women teachers leaving the service. We hope that a considerable proportion of married women teachers will continue to be employed in the sector of the front which is most serious at the present time—the infant school sector.
I took the opportunity recently by correspondence in the Press to make known some views I had about the general operation of the administration in bringing into force the Act of 1944. If we examine subhead F we may have some cause for disappointment at the Ministry of Works not being so expeditious as we might have hoped. The great bulge of those who are entering the schools under the increased age will take place in September next, and it is quite clear from reading the Supplementary Estimates that the programme of the Ministry of Works is considerably behind. Last September, which was a critical moment, we all waited to see what the impact of the raising of the school age would be, and on the whole we got over those difficulties in what may be described as tolerable conditions.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the item he is now discussing comes under anticipated saving, and it is not in Order unless it is connected up with the six items of expenditure.

Mr. Butler: I have conveyed my thoughts sufficiently and I would not wish to impinge upon your kindness, Sir Robert, to any greater extent. Therefore, I will turn my attention to the next item. If I refer to the College of Aeronautics I shall be similarly caught because that also comes under the heading of savings, and that would also apply to certain savings which are referred to earlier. It would be unwise for me to trespass any further on the Committee's attention, because on the main issue, which is administration, to which the Minister referred, I have put the points I wanted to, and it would not be possible to pursue that any further.

5.49 P.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: There is little opportunity of saying much fortunately on these


Estimates, although I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) on his ingenuity in working in a little homily on the teachers and infants schools. I should like to say, as one of the critics of the administration of students' grants, that I welcome the complete change which has taken place since last year. There was a very serious congestion at one moment, and I can only say that in my mail I have had no complaints at all during the last year. The second concession which is very important and which the Government have made is that now they are not counting any earnings which a student makes. This is important in view of the fact that there are a number of students who work during the vacations to eke out their income, because there is one criticism, and one criticism only, and that is that in some cases the grant is not quite sufficient in view of the increased cost of living.
I should like to make one further suggestion to the Minister. These grants are a tremendous improvement upon what existed after the last war. I was one of those who received the grants, and so I can speak from personal experience. I would ask the Minister to consider some continuation of this type of scheme, in view of the discovery which has been made during the last three years that a large number of people somehow missed, during their school years, the desire or the opportunity of becoming teachers. It looks like a permanent fact that a number of people begin to decide when they are 20 or 30 years of age that they are prospective teachers. The consequence is that we have this list of ex-policemen, ex-prisoners-of-war, ex-silversmiths and others in all kinds of skilled occupations, becoming teachers because they really want to teach. Has the Minister's Department considered whether it is possible to carry on, in the postwar years, opportunities for this type of entrant to the profession?
The Ministry would be very wise to make a report upon the whole scheme. I know that the Department is very busy, but this scheme, when finished, may reveal, as the most important educational discovery of postwar Britain, the fact that, for some reason which I can never understand, 100,000 persons, most of them ex-Service men, desire to become

teachers. Of that number, 40,000 were accepted, and many of the others are still waiting to enter emergency colleges. That fact is very much to our credit, particularly at a time when America, with all its riches, is experiencing a chronic shortage of male teachers. A very large number of our men wish to enter the teaching profession. I have been to many of these emergency colleges, and there is unanimous agreement that here is a group of older men who, for the first time in this age wish to teach, and whose enthusiasm is already infecting the schools. Would it not be good if the Ministry made a report upon the whole matter, and especially upon the human side of it, and let the fact be known not only in this country but in countries elsewhere?
The Government deserve congratulation from two angles regarding universities They have literally out-Barlowed the Barlow Report. There are double the numbers of students at universities in pure and applied science, and there is a 50 per cent. increase in the arts departments in the universities. Of those universities which I think I still represent, Birmingham and Durham have rather more than doubled their numbers, and Bristol and Manchester have almost doubled. What is more interesting is that very few of us expected that there would be not only 50 per cent. more men than in 1939, but also 65 per cent. more women. As this fact is not generally known I mention it in passing, without going into further figures. It is very difficult to keep in Order, as you will appreciate, Sir Robert
In the reference to the Further Education and Training Scheme there is a phrase at the end, a very interesting phrase, which is:
Regard should be had to the absorptive capacity of the professions and industry
When the grants are being made, somebody apparently has to see whether the professions and industry could absorb the students afterwards. I should doubt whether this phrase has been put into operation. Students have been taken more or less according to whether they were capable of going to the universities. There is a point that is worth bearing in mind; if the universities are to be recruited because persons can follow a definite career afterwards, that means goodbye to general education in the universities. The phrase about absorptive capacity ought to


be looked at with some care. Perhaps the Minister would give us an indication—the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden made the same point—how the scheme is to be continued. I gather that it is now finished. There are 40,000 still continuing in it, but unless the young men were in the Services before September, 1947, they will not be eligible for the grant. Do I understand that unless a young man entered the Services before September, 1947, he will not be eligible for a further education and training grant?

Mr. Tomlinson: At the moment the scheme is continuing and we are receiving applications at the rate of 300 to 500 a week. Further education in this form will not continue for those who were recruited under the new National Service Act. It applies to all the other recruits.

Mr. Lindsay: We are really asking whether the Minister can give us an indication now—perhaps this is a little too early to ask him—what it is intended shall replace the present scheme. We all know that he has very wisely doubled the number of State scholarships. There are problems raised by that measure. Anybody who wins an open scholarship will automatically get it made up. This may mean that at least 60 per cent. of the students who go to universities will have their fees and maintenance wholly paid. That is an entirely new thing in British history and is very important. We want to know whether the new scholarship scheme will take the place of the Further Education and Training Scheme, or whether there is to be some supplement to it.
Can the Minister explain subhead D.I relating to grants for educational services and research? No reference was made to it but I presume it relates to direct grant schools. The estimate says afterwards:
Further provision required for grants to secondary schools.
I gather that refers to the direct grant schools. I am, therefore, in Order in saying that those who think that Bristol Grammar School, which produced Sir Oliver Franks, and other such schools in this country, still have a function to perform are glad to know that this £100,000 is being paid and that these schools are still preserving some of the standards of secondary education

5.58 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I propose to confine the few words I have to say to item H.6, which was picked out by my right hon. Friend for comment. I think we are all glad about this matter, and would like to see a very great extension of this type of activity by the Ministry of Education. Great historical collections should never be allowed to be dissipated, and on no account should be allowed to be sold abroad. Whatever be the circumstances of our present life and whatever hardships we have to face, we cannot afford to let other people have treasures of this description which are needed urgently so that future generations may understand the spaciousness and graciousness that once existed. Not all generations have had the advantage of good design at their disposal. We know that there have been times when houses and their contents have been fairly ugly and if we ever wanted to retain them it would be as museum specimens, not in the best sense of the term but as something to avoid.
This house and its contents are, however, among our most precious possessions. I cannot help saying that, in asking for an extension of this activity, one has to bear in mind how impoverished we are in the provinces so far as assistance from central sources is concerned. Whereas even before the war the gross assistance from different Government Departments to our national collections and actions of this type was over £1 million a year, the 770 provincial galleries and museums had about £400,000 a year. I will leave that, Sir Robert, if you feel that I am out of Order. I am grateful to you for having let me say what all of us outside the Metropolis feel very strongly.
Through this action the Minister is enabling the Victoria and Albert Museum to purchase a particular collection. The furnishings and items of furniture will not necessarily all have to stay in one house but might be offered on loan to outside institutions, because the Victoria and Albert Museum has this power in certain circumstances. Would the Minister be prepared to advise sympathetically that collections such as this, controlled by an organisation receiving its help in this way, might at some time or another be at the disposal of those in the provinces on loan if not in any other way? If he is able to say he feels sympathetically about it,


I will sit down with this one last request. I hope he will use all his powers and influence to see that some of the inequalities from which we suffer are evened out as soon as possible.

6.2 p.m.

Commander Maitland: During the discussion of Estimates we had some time ago a great many hon. Members were extremely interested in the inspectorate in the education system. I have since asked various questions which have indicated that there has been an increase in the inspectorate, which is a very proper and right thing. Judge of my surprise when I noticed that that does not appear to be the fact.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to D.I, which is one of the savings. The Committee is not entitled to discuss anything on page 40.

Commander Maitland: I apologise, Sir Robert. I thought I might be able to raise it under A. I. I would like to say this further, even though I appear to be overstepping the line, which I believe I am not—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot bring that subject up under A.I.

Commander Maitland: I apologise, Sir Robert. I will leave the point.

Mr. B. A. Butler: Is it the case that the sum of £39,000 has no relation whatever to the inspectorate? May I ask the Minister if there is anything under the subhead "Salaries, etc.," which says:
Additional provision required to meet increased scales of pay and extra duty allowances.
relating to the inspectorate?

Mr. Tomlinson: I could not say at the moment whether the inspectors have had an increase in salaries during the 12 months. This relates to increases which have taken place in the rates of pay for certain sections of the administrative staff

The Deputy-Chairman: That subject is outside the scope of this Debate.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We have here subhead A.I, "Salaries, etc." in which we ar asked in a revised estimate for £39,000 My hon. Friend is simply trying to ask whether the inspectors have had any share in this rise in salaries of £39,000.

The Deputy-Chairman: That comes under subhead B.I, "Inspection and Examination: Salaries, etc," and that is not included in this Estimate.

Commander Maitland: I am most grateful, Sir Robert, for your help. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, as you said, will have an opportunity further to explain certain points, and perhaps you will allow him to do so when the time comes. I would like to associate myself with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) in asking that we should have a little more information as soon as we can about the future of the further education and training scheme. I have always thought of it, probably quite wrongly, as something which will gradually fade away. I may be quite wrong and that may be my ignorance. I would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind about its future.
Lastly, he mentioned a very important point about accommodation for juniors having regard to the increase in the birthrate. I hope he is making an equal effort in regard to those small children for whom accommodation is so important as for those who are affected by the raising of the school leaving age. Perhaps I might have an answer when the Minister replies.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The right hon. Gentleman has lavished so many well-deserved encomiums on himself that it would be a work of supererogation for me to add to them and I will therefore cast in the wastepaper basket the lavish and fulsome address which I have prepared or perhaps reserve it for one of his colleagues. This Estimate has been received with very great pleasure. It is not very often that we receive an overestimate with pleasure but it is realised on all sides of the Committee that no money has been better spent than this money and that this scheme is working well.
I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question under D. I of some importance to my constituency. It is with reference to the Hulme Grammar School, Oldham, a secondary school which has opted to be independent. The Hulme Grammar School, one of the oldest and most famous


schools in the country, has been in operation over 100 years. Many of us in Oldham regret the governors' decision, although we realise that they are entitled to take it. We think that the school must certainly not lose by the taking. The result is that the school is now receiving its final block grant. For the purpose of receiving benefit under D.I, a school has to show a measure of insolvency, and in the computation of that insolvency, according to the interpretation now placed on the matter, it is only entitled to show the actual liabilities owing at the moment. The Committee know that almost every grammar school is in this position. Railings have been taken away and not replaced, roads have not been constructed, playing fields are below their normal standard and buildings have not had proper repairs. The interpretation of the word "outgoing" within the meaning of this clause and assessing payments under D.I is a matter of very real importance.
The Minister should have regard, and should say at once that he is prepared to have regard not merely to the actual payments incurred in the current financial year, but to those payments which through no fault of the school but wholly due to the war, have had to be withheld and will have to be complied with in the years to come. This is a perfectly legitimate claim which should be submitted under the heading of D.I, and it should be subject to very careful and friendly consideration by the Minister when assessing the block grant.

Mr. Cove: Has the school opted as an independent school outside the grant system?

Mr. Hale: Yes. In the current financial year, it is entitled to its final grant.

Mr. Cove: It ought to have stated a price before it opted.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I am glad that the Minister has been able to give such a very satisfactory account of his stewardship. It would pain all of us to have to criticise him, and therefore it is particularly comforting to know that that necessity does not arise. If I had realised that he would equip himself so amply with unsolicited testimonials, I might have brought in my pocket a selection of letters also unsoli-

cited, which do not display quite the same enthusiasm for the expeditious methods of the Ministry of Education. However, I agree that they belong to the past, though not the distant past, and I have no doubt that with the so called streamlined methods—the right hon. Gentleman's language is a little above my head—now in vogue, the situation will improve greatly. At any rate, I can endorse what the correspondence of the Minister have said about the sympathetic way in which communications to the Ministry are answered. The Ministry rejects reasonable requests with a grace and urbanity which almost makes one feel that one was quite improper in putting them forward, and that is more than can be said for all the Departments of His Majesty's Government.
There are two points I want to make. One is to follow what was said by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) about absorptive capacity. I was interested a month or two ago in talking to two men who had just come up to Cambridge from the Forces. I asked them what they were reading. One said classics, and the other medieval history—neither of them an immediately utilitarian pursuit. Then I asked them what careers they proposed to take up, and neither of them knew. That is entirely proper, and I hope it will continue to be the case that grants will be given to men who want a university training and are prepared to wait until their second year, or some fairly advanced period of their university career, before they finally make up their minds what profession they will enter.
With regard to the Further Training Scheme, like other hon. Members I have been anxious about the future. The right hon. Gentleman said quite rightly that there could be no better investment than to provide this stream of men going through the universities and coming out of them to serve the State in various capacities, even if it be in the field of private enterprise. The need for that stream of men will be just as great three, four or five years hence as it was last year and as it is this year. Therefore, like other hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate, while I realise that this is not the occasion for a pronouncement on major policy by the right hon. Gentleman, I hope he will give us some indication as to the future in that respect.
Finally, there is one detail in connection with these Further Education Grants. They are given to men who have, in most cases, no other means at all and who have to depend on these grants for their maintenance during the university terms and during those rather long periods of vacation when they are not attending the university course. That means that in a man's first year he is provided for during the Long Vacation from June to October but, if he takes his degree at the end of his second year—as so many of these men do—and he enters the teaching profession, which means that he will not begin earning any money until September, he is left with this vacuum of three to four months during which nothing is coming in and he may be driven to incur debt which he will have to repay out of the not very ample earnings of his first year or two as a teacher.
I submit that a university course should be considered a little more liberally than is the case at present; that the vacation should be taken into account even if it is a vacation which fellows the end of a man's university course and that, therefore, the payment in his second year should not end in June but should be carried on until September if he is not earning before then. I know the spirit in which the Minister will receive that request, and therefore I make it with some confidence and I press it earnestly on his attention.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: I join in the congratulations to the Minister with regard to item E, because I think there is no one in the House or the country who would wish to see a diminishing expenditure on such a valuable contribution to the life of this nation, but I am concerned with one aspect of the recipients of these grants—the condition of the schools which they are attending at the present time, where they are now starting on the course which will eventually make them the recipients of these grants. In particular I am concerned with the condition of the Church of England schools, which are included in the development plan and which probably may be aided or controlled, and even come up for replacement This will not be decided by the Minister for some years and, in any case, it may not become effective until ten years hence, but many of the managers of these schools are concerned because they do not know what their position will be within the next

few years and, therefore, are diffident about incurring any expense which eventually they may not be able to refute.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would be obliged if the hon. Member will tell me to which item he is speaking.

Mr. Marshall: I am speaking on scholarships and maintenance allowances allotted by the Minister under E, but, of course, I am concerned with a rather earlier age. It is a simple question, with which I am sure the Minister can deal under that Section. I only want to ask him whether it is—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot ask the Minister to make a statement about ten years hence in respect of these matters.

Mr. Marshall: I did not do that, Sir Robert; I merely asked the Minister to give me some reply in regard to the development plan now before his Ministry. He could probably indicate some method of giving aid to these schools which will become aided or controlled at an earlier date than when the development plan comes into effect.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must not pursue that point.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Cove: Could the Minister tell us something more about D.I? I am not clear about the purpose for which the money is being expended—how much goes to educational research and how much to the direct grant-aided schools. I should be sorry to find an increasing amount going to the latter at the expense, particularly of the full-aided schools in the secondary field. There is an imperative need for educational research. In this country we have been lagging far behind the United States of America, and we shall continue to do so unless the Ministry takes a much more active interest in this matter.
We cannot afford to allow educational research to be purely the responsibility of private institutions and private bodies. The State must come much more actively ino it, Whatever we may say, the direct grant-aided schools are not essentially research schools—as a matter of fact, they are no more research schools than are the ordinary mainained grammar schools.
I wish to add my appreciation about what has happened in regard to the


scholarships and maintenance allowances. There is much more satisfaction on that now than there was a year or two ago. There is, however, one point which I wish to raise on this part of the Supplementary Estimate. It was stated by the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) that one or two have gone in for classics, or, maybe, history and have no thought what future they might have. That statement was received with approbation by the Committee, but the vast bulk of students are much more concerned about what jobs they are going to have when the course is over. The present situation is that it is quite easy for men who take science courses or engineering and various branches of technology to be swallowed up in industry almost immediately. I understand there is a great need and call for them and plenty of opportunities, but in regard to the arts I am informed that the outlook is not so hopeful.
I do not know what liaison there is between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour, but I hope that co-operation will be very close. It is rather hard on students to be turned out of universities, even if they have had Government grants, and to find themselves stranded after their university courses are over. I know that the Government cannot compel employers to accept men who have had training in the universities, but, as far as I can gather, there is not quite enough active co-operation between those who educate these young men and women and those interested in their after careers. Of course I am in favour of extending these grants, and I am glad they have been given, but I hope the Government will not only show an interest in education of the students, but will also take more active interest in the occupations they are to have when their training is over. It is almost impossible to criticise the right hon. Gentleman. Even if he did wrong, we would all think he was doing right. However, I hope everything is being done to get occupations for these students after their training.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Linstead: I must take up the point made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I understood him to say that he would regret it if sums of money were going to direct grant schools at the expense of other secondary schools.
That indicates an attitude of mind which some of us deplore. If we are to have direct grant schools as a part of our education system the last thing we have to do is to starve those schools. I hope that on reflection the hon. Member will agree that it is impossible to starve direct grant schools, so long as we are going to make use of them.
I wish to ask the Minister a question in relation to the further Education and Training Scheme. I agree with those who have said that the scheme is now running on very much smoother lines than a year or two ago. Out of the 300 or 400 applications the Ministry are receiving each week it would be interesting to know how many are accepted, and how many are turned down. In the scheme there is provision for men who developed powers of leadership during the war which were not recognised before they entered the Services. There is the possibility under the scheme of granting those men money to qualify, in spite of the fact that their training may not have been interrupted by war service. In one or two cases with which I have dealt I have found a hardening of attitude in the Department, and perhaps an unwillingness to interpret that provision liberally. That would be a pity, but perhaps the figures indicating the number of acceptances would disprove my fear. If the right hon. Gentleman could give the figures, it would help us to understand how the scheme is developing.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Under item E the Minister is asking for almost £1,500,000 supplementary grant. I would like him to give more details of how the money is being spent. He referred to the number of scholarships with which he will have to deal during the current year, but I was exercised in my mind by the remarks of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) in reference to the number of men who had expressed a desire to go in for teaching. I would like some further information in respect of this Vote, in order to show how the teacher training scheme is working. Some time ago men were complaining that they had to wait longer than they had perhaps anticipated, although there were real difficulties in the way. How far have the arrears been overtaken, and how


long will it be before we have cleared off the present applications?
Could we also have some information about the experience of the schools in dealing with this scheme, and the way in which the men are settling in? I do not know whether I can refer to this. The other day the Minister answered certain questions in respect of large classes in which there were numbers of 40 and 50 and the hon. Member for Moseley, Birmingham (Sir P. Hannon) will remember that the question referred particularly to his city. He was very jealous that the good name of that city should be preserved. But it is not peculiar to that part of the country. Local authorities have suffered from an inadequate staff—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss that further.

Mr. Davies: I wished to ask how far this scheme would help the Minister in solving that problem. I would like him to give some information as to what other aspects of education are covered by this Vote. Does it relate to schemes for which the Minister of Labour is responsible in dealing with crafts, such as building available to ex-Service men?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have told the hon. Member that he transgressed, and he must not pursue the matter further.

Mr. Davies: I am sorry to have transgressed, but you will appreciate, Sir Robert, that it is very difficult for a young Member to keep within the Rules of Order and that it is only by asking questions in this way that we can obtain the information.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I would not have ventured to trouble the Committee but for some remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I do not want in the least to introduce a controversial note, and I dare say that the hon. Member means the same as I would wish to mean, but as some of the things he said seemed to me to tend, in some respects, to give the wrong advice to the Minister, I hope that the Committee will not think it improper for me to intervene for a minute or two. I think it very dangerous to speak about undergraduates who come up to university with Government grants finding themselves stranded, at the end of their

time, as if there was some responsibility upon His Majesty's Government to make sure that there are no such cases.
There must be a risk of some persons who succeed in obtaining university degrees not thereupon at once obtaining the kind of entry to the kind of career which they at that stage desire. We shall get into a hopeless position if we once begin to have the sort of assumption, which has had serious ill effects in other countries, that if only once one gets a B.A. degree at certain universities then somehow one is, so to speak, endowed for life, that one will get a particular sort of employment.

Mr. Cove: I tried to convey that I was most deeply concerned about the prospects of arts students. The science students have plenty of opportunities. Am I wrong in trying to emphasise that the Government should have some interest in the men and women who have taken arts courses? Is it not only good for the country, but good for the universities and the students themselves that they should not be deprived of an opportunity?

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Member would have known the answer to these questions by now if he had not intervened. I was coming to that point next. It is no doubt true that at this moment there is a greater demand for more or less qualified scientists than for persons with the less quantitative qualifications of an arts degree.

Mr. Cove: Much more.

Mr. Pickthorn: That is true. I am all in favour of Government Departments always looking at all the arts graduates who have appeared in the last year or two and seeing how they can best be employed, and doing everything towards that end. I am afraid, however, of the assumption that it is a Government responsibility to see that no such person is stranded. I am the more afraid of it when the hon. Gentleman who used that phrase has appealed earlier for much closer interlocking—that was not exactly his word but I am trying to put it fairly—between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education in these matters.
There are two great potentia, dangers in that suggestion. One is that planning these matters may be wrong. I remember once meeting the ex-head of the German Forestry service just after the first Great


War, and saying the ordinary polite things to him about how much better their forestry was than ours. His reply was that in fact they had suffered very much from planning—they started planning their forestry two generations before we did. He said the fact was that the distribution of woods in Germany—the sorts of woods—between soft and hard, was less good for modern industrial purposes than it was in England, where there had not been any planning, because they had now got a proportion between soft and hard woods which two generations earlier had been expected to be right, and things had moved on. Similarly, if we have a risk of the Ministry of Labour deciding what proportion of students should read what subjects, however indirectly—

Mr. Cove: rose—

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Member has made his speech, and has made one interruption.

Mr. Cove: But the hon. Member must not misrepresent me.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am within the recollection of the Committee. There is the danger that that will do more harm than good. Secondly there is the danger of which we have all had great experience between the two wars. One of the greatest difficulties from a tutorial point of view was the people who came up to the universities with Board of Education grants and were, therefore, tied to becoming schoolmasters, and indeed, schoolmasters of a particular kind. A boy of 18 thought he wanted to be that kind of schoolmaster, and, in any case, he wanted to come to Cambridge. He got a grant from the Board of Education, but by the time he was 20 he did not want to be a schoolmaster, or he wanted to be a different kind of schoolmaster, but found himself tied. When I was tutor in my university I would not admit a boy with a Board of Education grant. I do not think that I ever cut a boy off from a university education because I always succeeded in finding other sources of finance for him. I said, "Keep it open to change your profession while you are here." I am certain that any advice given to the Minister which would tend in any way against that is very contrary indeed to the interests of education and also to more general interests. I thought it proper to speak those words of warning in view of

some of the speeches we have had this afternoon.

Mr. Cove: I agree with that.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: At the beginning of his remarks the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) prophesied a very successful future for my right hon. Friend peddling patent medicines and writing advertisements for them. At the moment my right hon. Friend is having a successful career selling education. Every penny included in this Supplementary Estimate will help him to do that job much better, and therefore I support the Estimate as a whole. I wish, however, to ask a few questions about subhead E, which deals with further education and training grants. As I understand the matter the scheme is running down, so that in autumn of this year it may he coming to an end. We have been told that 300 to 500 new applicants are still coming forward each week. I wonder if the Minister could tell us from what sources they are coming, and how many of them are being accepted, and how many are being told that they have as long as two years to wait before they can take advantage of the scheme?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have hesitated to intervene, but I think there is some misunderstanding. This does not apply to the emergency training scheme at all.

Mr. Chetwynd: I was aware of that, but I still think we ought to have a little more information about the 40,000 students still at universities or different establishments and those people who are still coming in. I think we all realise now that it is in the interests of students to have some break between their school career and their proceeding to a university. All our experience in the past two and a half years with the emergency teachers and these other people proves that they are more able to take in what is taught to them when they have had a break than if they go straight to university from school. That is why it is all the more important we should get some extra facts about the extra moneys needed for further education grants.
I understand that a man's own earnings in the recess are not taken into account in assessing his grant. Most of these people are married or are contemplating marriage and 50 per cent. of the earnings of their wives—and large numbers of their


wives are working—is taken into account. When those earnings are subject to Income Tax and then to this further 50 per cent. assessment by the Minister, it does not seem worth while for the wives of these students to go out to work. At the present time, when we need every person in occupation it seems that there should be a more liberal attitude on the part of the Minister in this matter. I would like to reinforce the proposal which has already been made, by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) concerning the payment of grants until the end of the summer vacation. I had a letter only this morning from a man taking one of these courses in which he said his course was due to end in June this year. He felt himself that although he would be accepted for a job before September, or even if he got into a job before then, his pay would not start until September. He expressed great alarm and anxiety as to what would happen to him in the meantime, and what would happen to many other people at the same college like him? I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to say that, where these people cannot obtain any financial aid to cover that period, he would be willing to extend their grant until the new term began.
I cannot understand why this grant must come to an end at the end of the academic year. It hardly seems necessary, and it is causing considerable hardship in these cases. If he could give some indication as to the future of this scheme, it would help many people who are now facing a call-up, and do not know whether to go into the Forces now, or to wait until they have completed their education. If they could be assured that, at the end of their fixed one year training, they would be eligible for a further education grant, it might persuade many of them to go into the Forces now, instead of waiting until they have finished their degree courses, or whatever it is. I think it is to their interest to get a wider outlook, and it might assist them to make up their minds.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I am quite prepared to join in the praise and the tributes paid to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon for the sympathetic way in which he has administered the work of his Department. I am not prepared to extend that praise to the regula-

tions of the Department. I wish to draw attention to one particular form of regulation. If an ex-Service man wishes to become a teacher there are grants to assist him, but if an ex-Service man, who has been in any profession before the war, wishes to join that profession after the war, there are no grants for him under the regulations of the Board. By way of illustration I would refer to a case which involved real hardship. A young man before the war was financially unable to become an accountant. He desired to become an accountant, but was obliged to follow a totally different occupation in order to maintain his parents. Desirous of becoming an accountant, he pursued that end by attending evening classes, while still engaged in the other occupation. He was called up. After the war he desired to obtain a grant in order to become an accountant, but he is not eligible under the right hon. Gentleman's regulations.
In that respect the regulations of the Department are not as generous to the ex-Service man as the regulations of the Ministry of Labour. I should like to see that changed. Why should not a man who has prepared himself, when he had not a great opportunity for so doing, to become an accountant, receive a grant to assist him?

Mr. K. Lindsay: Did he wish to go to college or to be articled?

Mr. Hopkin Morris: There is no reason why that grant should not be made to enable a man to become an accountant, just as much as to enable a man to become a teacher. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to it and widen the regulation accordingly.

6.44 P.m.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: I wish to express my thanks to the Minister for reading out the letter from Manchester, in which he was praised for his speed in answering inquiries and despatching cheques. I have had quite a lot of experience of applications for Manchester, and up to 18 months ago there were no cheques, much less speed. There is one difficulty to which I would draw attention with regard to an ex-Service man who has been trained as a teacher. I sent a case to the Department last October and the Minister touched briefly on the matter in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Saffron


Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). The man in question was trained as a teacher before he was called up. After he had finished his service he applied for a grant under the Further Education and Training Scheme in order to take a degree to improve his position as a teacher. I gathered from the reply that I have received—and which I sent on to the man—that under the present regulations it is not permissible to give him a grant in order to improve himself by taking a degree.
I rather gathered from the reply of the Minister, that this matter was being considered afresh. I hope that he will inform us fully whether that position has been altered, or whether he intends to alter it, because it does seem a matter which should be considered. In this instance there is no doubt that, but for the intervention of the war, this young man, using a certain proportion of the salary he received as a trained teacher, would have taken steps to qualify himself, as an external student of the London University, to take his B.A. degree. Under the Further Education and Training scheme he was allowed to believe he could qualify at the Manchester University for his B.A. degree. I am not clear whether he is eligible or not.

6.47 P.m.

Mr. Keeling: I wish to say a few words and make one suggestion about the grant of £90,000 for the purchase of the contents of Ham House. That wonderful collection of pictures and furniture is being purchased by the Government for what—I agree with the Minister—is the extremely low price of £90,000. That is due to the generosity of the owner, Sir Lyonel Tollemache, who, with even greater generosity, gave the house itself to the National Trust. I understand that the National Trust are to lease this house to the Victoria and Albert Museum, who will throw it open to the public. I am perfectly certain that the prospect of seeing this wonderful collection will attract an enormous number of people, not only my own constituents who live hard by, but people from all over the world. The house is surrounded by a garden, and the suggestion I wish to make is that the Government—not necessarily the Museum—should also manage the garden, as they could quite easily do, especially as Kew Gardens and Hampton Court are very near.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: If I had anticipated this spate of references to the congratulatory letters that I have been bold enough to read out I would have left them in the office. I did not wish to call the attention of the Committee, in effect, to the Minister but rather to the people who, under very difficult circumstances, as I discovered when I went to that Ministry, have done a really good job in straightening out this matter, and in placing it upon a proper footing.
With regard to the breakdown of the figure of awards for which the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) asked, they have been broken down for me and they do answer quite a number of questions that were put from different parts of the Committee. Roughly, the breakdown is as follows: Churches, 2,830; teaching, 12,561, of which 9,468 are tenable at the university and the other 3,000 in the teachers' training colleges; art, 2,693; music, 1,426; physical training, 204; engineering, 6,214; architecture, 3,104; medicine, 3,276. I would point out, with regard to medicine, that these grants go up to a period of six years, which, as everyone knows, is necessary. Other figures are, Civil Service, 2,027; law, 1,434; industrial chemistry, 1,269; dentistry, 768; pharmacy, 633.
It seems to me that, in that breakdown of the numbers, there is revealed something of the reason for the phrase that was put into the circular, and to which objection was taken. The absorptive capacity of particular trades or professions should he considered. While it ought not to determine whether or not a grant is made, or a university career entered upon, advice of that kind is of value. I agree that we cannot plan it accurately, but we should give advice to people who are seeking information on the absorptive capacity of any industry or profession. In some cases, it helps an individual to make up his or her mind.
I was also asked about the outlook for the future of the Further Education and Training scheme. This scheme has been referred to frequently. I can understand the anxiety of hon. Members about what will take place when the scheme comes to an end. I ask the Committee to remember that it will not finish for three or four years. The period about which we are speaking when these qualifications


have been obtained, is three or four years hence. Between now and then things will taper off as the men for whom this scheme was specifically drawn up in the days of war finish their training. In formulating a further scheme to follow this it will be necessary to take into consideration the circumstances of the time.
I hesitate to say just what form that scheme should take. I realise some of the difficulties of the moment due to the success of this scheme. All interested in universities and in the placing of students realise that the very success of this scheme causes difficulty for those young folk who now want to go straight from school to university. They have to enter into competition with those who are receiving grants under this scheme. On the face of it, it seems that a multiplication of the number of State scholarships, with progress along the lines of the beginning made this year—through our technical schools and colleges into the university and the mature scholarship—would provide the first idea of a scheme which would meet the case of those who were deprived of the opportunity by being called into the Services.
It must be remembered that this scheme was drawn up for a given purpose and that in dealing with it in this generous way, with the approval of every member of the Committee, we are not doing any more than we ought to do, though I think that we are doing as much as can be expected. We must maintain a realistic view of this scheme. I am not one of those who would suggest that in this country we have exceeded at any time what we ought to do in the shape of spoon-feeding individuals who receive grants. I would, however, warn the Committee that it is possible to interfere in some respects with the independence of any individual by making things too easy.
I am in difficulty with regard to the position which arises at the end of the academic year, and the bridging of the gap between them and the time when students will earn their own living three months later. It is not an easy problem. I question in my own mind whether or not it is the responsibility of the State to carry people over that three months. A man's hope for the future, in whatever occupation he intends to follow, is not very good if he cannot get a job to cover a period of three months. Three months in the pit might not be an unsuitable

method of preparing himself for the other type of life which he intends to follow; but wherever there is a case of hardship, arising from individual circumstances, I am prepared to look at the matter to consider what can be done. I do not think that it ought to be taken for granted that consideration will be given to every case.
I was asked whether the grant is sufficient in view of the change in the cost of living. This is a grant to meet all the expenses of the college. I have considered the matter on several occasions and I think that at the moment the grants are generous. In regard to the suggestion about the absorptive capacity of the industry for which many of these people are being prepared, all I wish to say is that in view of the large number of professions into which these men are going it is as well that we should know that we are not over-preparing men for one particular section. In the case of dentists, for instance, it is easy to discover the numbers in that profession. One should be in a position to acquaint the intending dentists of the situation when they have finished their courses.
Several hon. Members asked questions about Ham House. I say straight away that I believe that it is to the benefit of the country that the nation should own these places and that they should be used specifically for educational purposes. When I was asked whether we were prepared to suggest to the head of the Victoria and Albert Museum that the furniture should be loaned to the Midlands or to Lancashire, it occurred to me that, if we can come up to London for the Cup, occasionally we might come up to see something really of national value. I would like to see the development of a taste for this sort of thing, with a desire on the part of the people from the Midlands to go to a place like Ham House in order to discover something worth while.
The question whether or not furniture should be transferred in the way suggested is one for the individual responsible for the Victoria and Albert Museum. I would add my thanks to the individual in charge for what I consider to be the excellent job that he is doing.
Another question was raised about the grammar schools. May I say that the reason for asking for additional money was simply that claims had not been made


at the right time. They have come in since, we are compelled to meet them and so we have to make provision for them. In reply to the question by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) regarding terminal grants when a school is passing from the grant-aided to the independent position. The grants we make to schools becoming independent cannot exceed, at the maximum, the actual deficit at the time they go off the grant list; in other words, we are not allowed to pay for all the shortcomings of the past, but are allowed, under our grant regulations, only to meet the position in which they find themselves in the year in which they leave the grant-aided list.

Mr. Hale: Will my right hon. Friend allow me, as the point is of some importance? The word used in the regulations is "outgoings," and any court of law would certainly say that, if we have a scheme for making a terminal grant, we must take into account at the termination, not merely amounts that have been paid, but those which would have been paid but for regulations made by the Government restricting certain expenditure.

Mr. Tomlinson: I will look into the matter, and, if I find that what my hon. Friend suggests is correct and needs to be done, I will endeavour to meet it, but I warn my hon. Friend that it will need another Supplementary Estimate this year, and cannot be done under this one.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) also asked a question with regard to these grammar schools, and I have explained that this provision is due to meeting belated claims. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) suggested that the individuals who undertook this training at the universities should be prepared to take some risk. I agree with him entirely, and that is the whole purpose and object of the scheme. The individual whose education was interrupted as a consequence of his being called up was the case constituting the whole purpose of this scheme; in other words, it is to prepare him to do what he would now have been doing, and would have been capable of doing, had he not been called up to the Services.
That brings me to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Withington (Squadron-Leader Fleming) concerning the individual who qualified as a

teacher, probably with a grant previously given by the Board of Education, and who was then called into the Services. His education was not interrupted, and, from the standpoint of this scheme, he had finished and was in a position to earn his living by the qualifications which he had obtained. It is only because of the fact that he had not been restricted in that way; otherwise, the number of applicants whom we should have had might have been legion.
There are quite a number of other questions which were asked about matters which I consider were interesting but outside this particular Estimate. For instance, the question raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall), about the schools to which these people, when qualified, would be attached, is a subject which we cannot discuss here, and the same thing applies to the question concerning the gardens surrounding Ham House. As one interested in gardens, I am very anxious that people should look round at these gardens as well as the 17th century furniture, but I am not making provision for that here, and none of this sum of £90,000 is intended for this purpose. Finally, I would like to express my thanks for the way in which the Committee has received this Supplementary Estimate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,781,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

CLASS X.

MINISTRY OF FOOD

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £142,328,498, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1948, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services including certain subsidies; and sundry other services.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I think it is for the convenience of the Committee that I should move this Motion formally, and reply to various points,


which will no doubt be raised, after a few speeches have been made.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: We are in Committee, and there is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman speaking twice. Moreover, I should like to say now—and I shall develop it further—that we are in a very great difficulty here The Government have held back the Argentine Agreement, which is the main subject for our discussions tonight, and I had thought that, in view of the fact that they have not published that agreement—although the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day, when a question was asked about it, that we had better wait and see it in writing—the right hon. Gentleman would go some way to make amends for the Government's failure to produce this agreement by explaining its provisions in some detail this evening before the discussion takes place. Of course, the matter is in the Minister's hands, and, if he does not speak now, we shall go on and it may take a little longer. It is for him to say, but I offer to give way to him now in order that he may make his statement on the Argentine Agreement and other matters concerned with it at this stage. If he prefers not to do so, I am perfectly prepared to carry on. Which does he prefer?

7.7 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): We are most anxious to do our best to assist the Committee in every way we can. We have not held back the Argentine Agreement, because we have not got it.

Mr. Reid: Where is it?

Sir S. Cripps: It is coming as soon as we can get a copy from the Argentine

Mr. Reid: There is such a thing as the telegraph.

Sir S. Cripps: I know there is such a thing as the telegraph, but it is not very safe to publish documents on the basis of a telegraphic communication.

Mr. Reid: There is air mail.

Sir S. Cripps: We are having it sent by air mail as soon as we can, and we hope it will arrive today or tomorrow. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the final agreement was only reached the day before yesterday; it is on

its way here, and the moment it comes it will be published.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the Government do not know the terms of the agreement?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not know the final wording of the agreement, but I know its terms. We have not held back publication, because whatever is published in the White Paper must be the accurate agreement, and we cannot have that until we get a copy of the actual agreement from the Argentine. If it would assist the Committee, I am prepared to say a few words about the contents of the agreement in order that the Committee, may know them.
Negotiations with the Argentine were entered into for the very obvious purpose of securing the foodstuffs and the feeding stuffs that are essential for this country for the coming 12 months without any expenditure of dollars. That was, of course, the major feature at which we were aiming, and that meant that there had to be some device, by one means or another, by which the Argentine would hold sterling, because the balance of our trade with the Argentine is such that we have to pay them more than they pay us. In other words, we have not been able to balance our exports to the Argentine against our imports from them. That has not been entirely due to our fault, but also to the fact that there has been a number of prohibitions and licensing provisions in the Argentine market which have stopped us sending in a number of our most saleable exports, such as motor cars and whisky, to take two examples. One of our other objectives with the Argentine was to secure an opening up of the market so that we can, in future years, get nearer a balance between our exports to and our imports from the Argentine. With those three objectives in view—to obtain our essential supplies, not to pay in dollars, and to expand, from our point of view, our exports into the Argentine—we set out.
What we have been able to secure, as a result of the agreement, is, first, all the foodstuffs and feedingstuffs we wish to secure from the Argentine during the ensuing 12 months. The bill for those goods amounts, roughly, to £110 million. The prices at which they were bought—as the House knows, we never disclose the prices


of individual commodities—were rather higher than those which we paid before. That is quite natural, as there has, of course, been, on the whole, a very sharply rising market since our last contract was entered into with the Argentine. On the other hand, many of the prices were well below those which obtained at the same time for similar goods in other markets.
Secondly, we secured something which we were anxious to secure—the early payment of the moneys due under the arrangement made for the purchase of the British-owned Argentine railways. We were very anxious to conclude that deal as quickly as possible, because, while the railways remained suspended between heaven and earth, in the sense that they were neither Argentine nor British, it was extremely difficult to maintain them and to supply them with the spare parts and other things that were requisite. It was obviously desirable that that position should be brought to an end as quickly as possible.
The agreement is that, by 1st March, the £50 million will be paid by the Argentine for the railways. In order to do that, it was necessary for the Argentine to have more sterling; they had not enough sterling in this country to pay for the railways, and also to continue their banking operations, a part of their banking being based upon sterling—the A Account, as it was called—which, since 1941, has had a gold guarantee clause attached to it. Therefore, it was necessary for some provision to be made, to put further quantities of sterling at the disposal of the Argentine Government. It was arranged that we would pay in advance for the whole of the foodstuffs and feedingstuffs which we had agreed to purchase for the 12 months ending March, 1949, to the extent of £110 million, with a provision that the receipts from the deliveries of these goods should be set off against this sum of £110 million as they were delivered, and that if, at the end of the period, there was any sum still outstanding, that sum would be repaid to us by the Argentine Government.
Next, the Argentine Government agreed to give most-favoured-nation treatment to the import of British goods, and also to grant import permits to the value of £10 million in 1948 to United Kingdom goods which had hitherto been subject to restriction. That, of course, does not

mean that we limit our exports to, £10 million; it applies to certain special categories which, hitherto, had been subject to restriction on entry into the Argentine market. The President of the Argentine Republic has also given an assurance that this figure will be substantially increased if, during the course of the year, the general situation in the Argentine so permits.
The Argentine Government have further agreed that their departments responsible for purchases—other things being equal—will give preference to United Kingdom firms in making those purchases. That, again, should be a considerable help in expanding our volume of exports to the Argentine. We have also agreed to facilitate the supply to the Argentine during 1948 of certain commodities which are important to their economy, including 1 million tons of coal and 2 million tons of petroleum products. There are some other commodities as well, which are set out in the schedule to the agreement, but those are the two principal commodities with which we are concerned. The other commodities cover a certain amount of steel, fabricated and semi-fabricated, some steel spans for bridges, some tinplate which is largely required for the packing of meat, zinc sheets, tin, lead, asbestos, agricultural machinery and implements, cutlery, those very familiar articles in supply to the Argentine, caustic soda and soda ash, and one or two other chemical materials in the quantities which we calculated we could supply to the Argentine if we were able to get the foodstuffs that we required.
The net result is that we have promised the Argentine to use our best endeavours to facilitate the supply of this list of goods which they urgently require, and we have got from them the guarantee of delivery of the foodstuffs, raw materials, and feedingstuffs which we urgently require. They have opened their market, to a certain extent, to some of their less necessary requirements, and have promised to open it still further during the course of the year, if conditions permit. We have agreed to pay in advance for one year's supply of goods—hence this Supplementary Estimate, very largely—and they have agreed to pay the debt for the railways as at 1st March.
The financial provisions with regard to that are a little complicated. Hitherto,


the Argentine Government have maintained two sterling accounts at the Bank of England, known as the "A Account" and the "B Account." The A Account has been covered by a gold guarantee, and it has not been freely available for current transactions. It has been earning one-half of one per cent. interest, which interest is available for current transactions. The B Account consists of the net sterling earnings since 17th September, 1946, including any agreed releases from the A Account into the B Account. It was agreed that an amount of £5 million a year should be so released, together with the interest on the A Account balances, the half per cent. to which I have already referred. The sums in the B Account were not guaranteed, but were freely available for current transactions.
They were earning interest at the current rates of the Bank of England. At the date of the present agreement the A account held rather over £100 million, and the B account a sum of about one-third of that. Under the present agreement, as I have said, the Ministry of Food will pay in advance to the Argentine Government £100 million in respect of food and feedingstuffs purchased in 1948 and 1949, together with a single cash payment of £10 million in respect of increased Argentine production costs. The reason for that is that it was desired to make some increase in the total paid to the Argentine. It did not matter to us which of the various commodities which we purchased it was assigned, and we therefore made it a lump sum payment which the Argentine Government according to their local domestic desires, could assign to one or other of the commodities which we purchased. That sum will be paid as soon as these Estimates are through. That will be credited to the Argentine Government's B Account at the Bank of England, which will then be increased to somewhere rather short of £150 million.
The Argentine will forthwith pay over to the railway companies the purchase price of £150 million by clearing their B Account entirely, and supplementing that with whatever is necessary from the A Account, depending upon exactly how the accounts stand on the day on which the transaction passes. The B Account, though emptied by this operation, will nevertheless be maintained as an account

to receive subsequent sterling earnings on current account, so that both the A and B Accounts will continue to exist under these new conditions. The A Account will, however, now for the first time be available for payments of any nature within the sterling area—that is to say, the block is removed from the A Account—and it will continue to earn the one-half per cent. interest and to enjoy the existing gold guarantee as long as it exists. The B Account, which starts with nothing in it at all, will be available later to receive balances for payments of whatever nature within the sterling area, as it always has been, and it will continue to earn the current rates of the Bank of England. But it will now for the first time enjoy a revaluation guarantee, on terms which will be agreed between the Argentine Central Bank and the Bank of England, and somewhat similar to that which rules as regards the A Account at the present time. That guarantee will be applicable to any balances in the B Account accumulating up to 31st March, 1949, as well as to any sterling that accrues thereafter as a result of forward contracts made before 31st March, 1949. Those moneys will maintain that guarantee until they are spent.
I think, and I hope, that that explains to the Committee as clearly as I can the way in which this financial transaction will be carried through. The Committee will see that the net result is that the B Account, which was the unblocked account, will be completely emptied by paying off the railways. The A Account will be drawn on to a small extent and will be unblocked; otherwise, of course, there would be no unblocked balances in the hands of the Argentine Government, and they would have no money with which to purchase goods in this country. Those balances will be unblocked, and for the period of the deliveries under this contract the moneys paid into the B Account will have a guarantee against devaluation, so that they will be secured at their present value or at their value when they are paid to the Argentine Government, as we shall be secured of the goods which we receive in exchange.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the A Account would be available for payments within the sterling area. Does that


mean that they come within category 2 or category 4 of the Exchange Control Act?

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot answer that question off the reel. I will find out for the hon. and gallant Member. I am not sufficiently familiar with the various categories to be able to say, and I would not like to give a, quick answer, because I might make a mistake. I will ascertain and will let the hon. and gallant Member know in the course of the Debate. I do not think there are any further provisions to which I need draw attention, or, indeed, any further material provisions at all with respect to the agreement, but if it should happen that there are any other questions about the agreement which hon. Members wish to raise, I will do my best to answer them

7.27 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am sure the Committee are obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the clear way in which he explains the terms of this agreement. I shall have some comments to make on that matter as I go along.
I am a little surprised that the Minister of Food has not seen fit to follow the usual practice and come to explain his Estimate to the Committee. After all, even leaving aside the Argentine Agreement, there is a matter of £50 million-odd involved by way of Supplementary Estimate which had materialised before the Argentine Agreement was signed, and the manner in which the trading services Estimate is presented is so cryptic that it is almost impossible for anyone to understand it adequately. We may try to put bits of a jig-saw puzzle together, and we may happen to be right, but, in view of the extremely sketchy method in which these Estimates are presented, I should have thought that the Minister would have thought it necessary to supplement his Estimate by an intelligible explanation. However, we hope that we may get that explanation later on. As we are in Committee, if any hon. Members who speak before the Minister find that they have something to add after the Minister has spoken, no doubt they will be able to catch your eye in order to do so, Major Milner.
The field to be covered by this Estimate is extremely wide, and I think it would

be for the convenience of the Committee if we first dealt with the trading services, including the Argentine Agreement—because that is intimately connected with the trading services—and then at a later stage my hon. Friends who wish to devote their remarks more particularly to the groundnuts scheme will endeavour to catch your eye, Major Milner, after the other Debate has come to an end. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee that the Debate should be divided in that way, because there is no real relation between the two from the point of view of the development of the Debate. Personally, I am not disposed to say anything at this or any other stage with regard to the groundnuts scheme.
I pass to the Argentine Agreement. It is obviously of an unprecedented character. I was not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer kept a spokesman, but apparently he does; I read from the Press of the 17th of this month:
A Treasury spokesman last night described the British-Argentine Trade and Finance Agreement as in some respects unusual.
Under-statement is a good old British characteristic, but I have never seen a more masterly example than that. I shall have something to say in a few moments about the sums which are being paid under this agreement for what we are to get
It is plain that there are other matters of vital importance involved in the agreement and in effect the Argentine have got a good deal more out of this than merely the £110 million in exchange for the goods which they are to deliver to us during the coming 13 months. They have got payment in advance. I understand that is involved in the general scheme, and I make no particular point of it, but the Chancellor was very careful not to tell us why the whole of the A account is being unblocked.

Sir S. Cripps: I did.

Mr. Reid: I must have failed to follow it.

Sir S. Cripps: Might I repeat what I said? As the whole of the B account would be emptied by payments on the railways, there would have been no balance in the B account, and unless they had some balance they could not purchase any goods in this country. As we want them to purchase goods, we had to give them some sterling with which to do so.

Mr. Reid: That does not explain why we take £43 million out of the B account and why we have unblocked £117 million. I can well understand an agreement in which some equivalent sum, such as £40 million or even £50 million, of the A account was unblocked; that would be logical. Even that would be giving a very great advantage to the Argentine Government and would be storing up for the Chancellor considerable difficulties when other people used it as a precedent. To unblock £117 million because they are exhausting a B account of £43 million is, I should have thought, the most improvident thing this Chancellor is likely to do in his tenure of office. One would almost think the last Chancellor were still in office.
I really cannot understand—unless this is a damnosa hereditas which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken over from his predecessor—and he shakes his head—on what possible basis this can be justified. Observe what happens. The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that it is available only in the sterling area. That is quite true, but a lot of things can be bought in the sterling area, a lot of things that could be resold in America, and, therefore, in so far as that process could be operated by the Argentine, in effect the right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving them access to dollars for exchange at our expense. I cannot understand why there should have been this agreement. I trust that at some stage in this discussion we shall be told why it was necessary to unblock the whole of the £117 million when the amount of the B account being exhausted was only something over £40 million.
In addition to that, I do not quite understand why it is necessary to give a new guarantee against devaluation to new money coming into the B account. They have never had it before. It is quite true that, in so far as A money is transferred to B account, there may be a case for the guarantee following it. I do not know, I am not sufficiently a financial expert, but we ought to have some justification for completely new money attracting this guarantee. Are other people to get it as well, or is it only for the Argentine? If everybody is to be allowed to have a gold guarantee attached to any sterling balances in this country, I should have thought the Chancellor's position was even less enviable than we know it to be.
The next point I would like to ask is this—because for once I thought what the Chancellor said was ambiguous. It may have been my fault. I understood him to say that the sum we pay in advance was for the whole of the goods we have agreed to buy over the next 12 months to the extent of £110 million. I do not know whether he meant that the £110 million is intended to cover all the goods we are likely to buy over the next 12 months—his words may have meant something else—

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid it was my ambiguity. What I meant was that the goods which we are going to buy, and have agreed to buy, and they have agreed to sell us, will cost £110 million.

Mr. Reid: This becomes of great importance when I come to the subject of meat. I have great difficulty in disentangling the information which we have on that subject. Because of the difficulty which results from that, I thought it best to have it clear. I take it that this agreement supersedes the agreement of 1946. Under that agreement, prices were not to be readjusted until September, 1948, and I take it that the present readjustment means the abandonment of that part of the 1946 agreement. I am not quite sure whether the rest of the 1946 Agreement remains, with the other important point, namely that we buy the whole exportable surplus or a large proportion of it up to October, 1950. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that part of the 1946 Agreement is still in operation.
I come to the terms of this agreement and, first, to the 10 per cent. which the Chancellor told us it was desired to add to the price. I wonder who desired it? If the prices are fair prices I can see no reason for adding anything to them. If they are not fair prices, I should have thought it desirable that fair prices should be stated in the agreement. The £10 million is called a contribution towards increased Argentine costs of production in respect of the food agreed to be purchased. I suppose that means that the food, or some of it, would be sold at a loss if the prices which stand in the agreement were all the Argentine got and, therefore, something has to be added to these prices in respect of increased costs of production. Why that was not done in a rather clearer way it is very difficult to


understand. It seems to be a window dressing which, I hope, is not to be a precedent for other agreements.
There are four heads under which the goods which we buy are grouped in this Supplementary Estimate. Apparently, £15 million worth of goods is to be shipped or, at least, delivered before the end of March. It does not specifically appear in the revised Estimate. The revised Estimate covers only £85 million worth which is not to be delivered until after the end of this financial year. Taking that £85 million worth, I find that we are to get £37 million worth of cereal feedingstuffs which, I understand, are to be maize, with possibly an alternative of a certain amount of barley and a very small addition of broken wheat: £23 million worth of meat; £8.6 million worth of feedingstuffs other than maize; and £16.4 million worth of oils and fats. It is not possible to determine from the papers in front of us how the other £15 million is allocated between these four heads, and I hope that the Minister will tell us the allocation of that £15 million among the four heads. If it is proper to disclose the allocation among the goods which are to be got next year it must be equally proper to disclose it in respect of goods which are being delivered this year.
Now I pass to the quantity of goods which we are to receive. Again, we have not been told anything in this country. The usual thing that happens nowadays is, that we get our information about the Minister's contracts from the other contracting party, who is perfectly willing to publish it, and does; and then it is cabled over here. I really cannot quite understand why the Minister should be so tender about over-working his publicity department as not to give us the information direct. However, for some reason he will not do it. I want to ask him whether the statements of the quantities which have been published in the Argentine are correct. The Press carried a full statement under date line Buenos Aires, 13th February. Incidentally that seems some time before the agreement was finally concluded, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps, someone will tell us whether the forecast is an accurate one or not. We were told then that the amount was 1,272,000 metric tons of maize and 85,000 metric tons of broken wheat, with an option to substitute some

barley for maize. I am not sure that I have accurately converted the metric tons to our kind of tons, but I take it that it represents about 1,200,000 tons of cereal feedingstuffs. We know that we are to pay at least £37 million for it, because that is in the Supplementary Estimate. It may be that we are paying more. That represents a price of over £30 a ton.
The Chancellor told us that he would not disclose the prices which we were paying. I do not know why, because we can reconstruct them, to a large extent, from the papers which we have. Everyone else knows the prices, except Members of this Committee. Unless the Minister tells us we are going to get a much larger quantity than 1,200,000 tons of maize—and it does not seem likely that the Argentine would under-estimate the quantity they are going to give us—we can be absolutely certain, on the information that is before us, that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to pay over £30 a ton for maize. If it is not so, it is extremely necessary that that should be contradicted at the earliest possible moment. Indeed, a most reputable and well informed organ of the Press has put the price as high as £35 per ton—an astonishing figure. We know that according to an answer given on the 2nd February, we bought during the last half of last year 341,000 tons at an average price per ton f.o.b. of £17. What has happened to cause that difference?
The Chancellor told us about prices elsewhere. In an answer given on 19th December the Minister told us that the average cost of maize imported during the financial year, 1947–48, on a landed cost basis, including Ministry overheads, was £23 16s. This price, I take it, was a f.o.b. price Under the agreement, certainly, the price does not include Ministry overheads. Yet, apparently, it is over £30. I do hope that the Minister can demonstrate that the reconstruction which well informed persons have made, and which I have attempted to check and have found no flaw in, is quite wrong. The plain way to reassure us would be to disclose the actual terms of the agreement.
There is another matter with regard to maize which I wish to raise. Last year we bought, in round figures—I think we agreed to buy, in round figures—300,000 tons of barley and 700,000 tons of maize.
In the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Estimates on 1st July last year he hold us that we had a considerable amount of feedingstuffs — well over 750,000 tons—which had been bought in the Argentine and was ready for shipment. I do not know what the exact figures are, but it would seem something like half of that has still to be shipped or, at least, to arrive in this country. I see from the January figures which have just been published that maize is coming in from the Argentine at a considerable rate, and I do not know just how much of that 750,000 tons is still lying in the Argentine; but I assume—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm this—that the new purchase of 1,200,000 tons is additional to any balance on the old year's purchase which is still in the Argentine. Otherwise, we should be buying it a second time over, and buying it at a much higher price.
I see the Chancellor agrees we are going to get—and this is the important point—over the next 12 or 13 months from the Argentine considerably more than 1,200,000 tons of whatever it may be, which is in the agreement. But if the price is anything like what I have tried to explain, what is the effect going to be on the price of maize and maize products to the consumers in this country? I suppose that this is the new harvest maize which is not yet reaped. Perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that. Or is it maize from stock, from last year's harvest? I am talking of the maize under the new Andes Agreement. Perhaps, he will tell us which it is. In any event, that affects really only the date at which it would be delivered. But when it comes to this country for delivery, if it carries anything like the price which I have suggested one of two things must happen: either the amount of the subsidy must go up—and go up steeply—or the price to the consumer must be raised. Now, which is it to be? We ought to know; and I am sure the Government must have a view about it.
I do not wish to detain the Committee by dealing with more than one other topic under the Argentine Agreement, and that is meat. Here, I really am puzzled The Press report to which I referred a few moments ago tells us that we are to get 400,000 long tons of frozen meat, and 20,000 long tons of boneless canned beef and mutton—420,000 tons altogether. Yet

the only figure which appears in the new Supplementary Estimate as arising out of this agreement is £23 million. It may be that there is already, or will soon be, a large quantity of meat afloat which is in the other £15 million, which is not distinguished in these accounts. Anyway, the amount of money for meat is surprisingly small if it applies to the whole of the 420,000 tons. If that is the true state of affairs, I do not think that the price of meat could have gone up at all from the last figure.
On the other hand, there are persistent rumours that under this new agreement the price of meat is considerably larger than it was under earlier agreements. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us on this matter, and to tell us that the figure which appears in the Estimates, plus the appropriate proportion of the unallocated £15 million, is the whole sum which we are to pay for 420,000 tons of meat, and therefore that the price is reasonable. That, of course, does not take account of this extra £10 million. I can hardly believe that anybody could attribute any part of that £10 million to the maize if the price without that supplement is already so astonishingly high as I suggested. Presumably, the bulk of the £10 million goes to increase the meat price. At least we ought to know what the basic price is, and then we can leave the £10 million to look after itself.
It has been suggested—I do not for a moment say that the Government have contributed to this—that this agreement makes safe our meat ration for the corning year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us his view about that. I have not attempted to get strictly comparable figures out of the imports for last year, but the total for meat of every kind, as shown in the accounts, is 1,400,000 tons—I agree not wholly comparable—and under this agreement we are getting 420,000 tons. Plainly, that does not assure our meat ration next year, unless we are still to import from other sources as much as we did last year. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put the meat situation in its proper perspective as it has been improved by the Argentine Agreement.
It appears that the £150 million for the railways—out of which, in effect, this £110 million for this year's food is taken—will have gone before the next financial


year, and we shall have to find our food for next year out of some quite different source. I do not know whether the Government have dared to look so far ahead; but if it be the fact that this year we are eating the Argentine railways, what are we going to eat next year? I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is still prepared to be complacent about his methods of socialised buying? I wonder whether he is still prepared to say, as he was last July:
I am perfectly sure that this country need have no doubt whatever of its ability to obtain an ample food supply in the coming years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1947; Vol. 439, C. 1184.]
He went to great trouble to get that last "s" put in, and it is the coming years which now seem so difficult. I hope that he will be able to tell us about that.
I apologise for keeping the Committee so long, but these matters are rather complicated, and I feel that they must be explained. The Supplementary Estimate shows an increase of £146 million on the original Estimate. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how that is related to the ceiling on food subsidies, because before we vote this money we are entitled to know whether the Government are still adhering to their policy of a ceiling on food subsidies, or whether this supplementary Estimate represents an increase—a heightening of that ceiling. It is not possible to determine that from an inspection of the accounts, because a rise in the adverse balance may be due, either to a trading loss which is met by a subsidy, or to a larger amount in stock at the end of the year than the Ministry had at the beginning.
Probably there has been a good deal of hoarding during this year. We know there has been, for example, in the case of sugar; and it may well be that there has been in the cases of other commodities. At the beginning of the year the policy was to run down the stocks, and therefore the estimated cash deficiency was admitted, by the financial memorandum attached to the Estimates, to be very much less than the actual anticipated trading loss and, therefore, subsidy. But how does this figure of £459 million, which is the new deficiency, square with the actual trading loss and subsidy for the year? I think there must have been a good deal of hoarding, because the

original estimates of the receipts which the Government were to get by selling food during this 12 months was £1,127 million. In fact, as the revised estimate shows, they received only £979 million. They received £148 million—13 per cent.—less than they anticipated. Now that was not because the prices went down. Far from it. It was because they released less food.
This account, therefore, means that during the year the Government released 13 per cent. less food than at the beginning of the year they had determined we ought to have. It may be that our position in the world today is such that hoarding on that scale is necessary. But let us hear whether that is the explanation, or whether there has been a rise in the ceiling of that subsidies. Not all the subsidies are shown in this Vote. We were told that at least two—acreage payments of £18 million, and fertilisers of £8 million—are not shown. Therefore, at least £26 million has to come off the £392 million in order to get the ceiling of the subsidies of the Ministry of Food deficiencies.
We have had extremely contradictory accounts of what the position is. We were told about the £392 million when we had the Budget in April. Then a detailed statement of the subsidies was given in reply to a Question on 7th August. There, the maximum seemed to be adhered to, but when we come to 1st December—and I ask the Minister to give a full explanation of this—the position is very different. Although, in the Supplementary Budget before that, we had been assured that the ceiling would not be exceeded, when we come to the answer on 1st December, we had the figure of £342 million set out, and were then told that certain items, including animal feedingstuffs, welfare foods, milk in schools, national milk schemes, fertilisers and other payments made by the Agricultural Departments, were not included in that figure. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) sought to repair that deficiency, and was told a fortnight later that the items here excluded amounted to £65 million. There is still left the £4 million in the case of New Zealand and £8 million in the case of fertilisers, which we were told about in the Supplementary Budget. Adding them all up, it comes to £420 million, and the estimated subsidies on 1st December were therefore £420 million, if figures mean anything at all.
It is true to say that the Minister goes out of his way to frame his details in a different way every time we ask him a Question. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to compare one answer with another. I cannot see how his answer on 1st December and 15th December can be squared with any less rate of subsidies than £420 million per annum on this account. Is that the position today, or is the ceiling of £392 million being adhered to? The Committee ought to have an answer to that before we pass these accounts. I agree that the £459 million is certainly well above the true amount of the subsidies. That means that the amount by which the £459 million exceeds the true subsidies will have to be carried forward to next year, and then we shall find, in order to keep to the true subsidy of £392 million, the deficiency will be the amount shown plus the carry forward. We shall have to discuss that when we come to next year's Estimates.
I do not want to enter into the detailed items shown as increases in the original Supplementary Estimate, but I think we ought to have some explanation about the £56 million increase in meat, apart from this new Argentine Agreement. The Committee will see that the estimated deficiency on meat rose from under £2 million this time last year to £58 million in the revised Estimate, and before the Argentine Agreement came into operation. Plainly, the agreement had nothing to do with that, because as early as August the estimated deficiency on meat had risen to £53 million. Therefore, something had happened between early spring and August to cause that rise. I know that there was a rise in prices which home producers received, but I do not know how much that accounts for; but we ought to know how this very large increase has been caused. It is all the more odd, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman told us that the cuts in meat which were made, as from last autumn, amounted to a total of £61 million a year, and that these cuts were in operation. We ought to hear how the cuts of £61 million are squared with a rise in the subsidy from a triflng sum to £57 million, and before the Argentine Agreement.
The only other matter upon which I should like to say something is tea, because here again the Government's pronouncements have been somewhat contradictory. The original Estimate was for

£3½ million, but it had risen to £18½ million by the time the first Supplementary Estimate had been put in. It had been rising throughout the year. It rose to £9 million in December, and to £18 million when this Estimate was prepared at the end of January. Is that due to hoarding of tea, or is it due to a rise in prices? I suspect it is due to hoarding, but we ought to know about that. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary on 5th August that if more supplies came along, we should get an increase in the ration. Then we were told by the Government on 28th August that the tea ration would not be increased beyond the present reduced level of 2 oz. a week. I understood that the purpose of these cuts was to save dollars, but no tea comes from dollar countries, and therefore it is a little difficult to understand why we should be held down to this ration, having hoarding of tea, with the resulting increase in the Supplementary Estimate, if that is the position.
We were told that it did not matter how much we spent on rum because it came from soft currency areas, and it did not prejudice the purchase of other foods, but when it comes to tea, which is also paid for in sterling, the matter seems quite different—we must withhold tea while we let out the rum. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will explain why that is, because it is not plain to the ordinary man in the street, seeing that we pay for both in sterling. I will not deal with any of the very numerous topics which leap to the eye on this Estimate, and in order that my speech may not he too prolonged, I will conclude merely by saying that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to be a little more forthcoming about the affairs of his Department than he has sometimes been in the past.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: I do not wish to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) in his detailed analysis of the Supplementary Estimate. I wish to deal with the important limited field of the Argentine Agreement. When I read the first report about the agreement, I was concerned in regard to its terms, and I felt that it was an occasion on which we should hardly be justified in putting up the flags. I was concerned in regard to the whole matter of prices, par-


ticularly in respect of the supplementary £10 million, which seems to have some measure of obscurity about it. I, personally, find it rather difficult to understand why we must pay £100 million in advance. There may be a good technical reason for it, which I do not comprehend, but nowadays it seems that we pay before we receive the goods. That has recently happened in the case of the agreement with Russia, and in this case, particularly when large sums are due to us in respect of railways, the reason for advance payment seems very obscure.
The particular point I want to raise with the Minister, however, is whether we have before us the full scope of the Argentine Agreement, including its various ramifications. A point on which I would like the Minister to throw some light relates to the Smithfield and Argentine Meat Company, which, as most Members know, is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, of the meat importing companies. It has many subsidiaries, both in this country and elsewhere, and it seems very strange to me that just at the moment when we have concluded an agreement with the Argentine this company should have been taken over by Argentine interests. It may be pure coincidence, and I am open to correction and guidance in the matter, but I think we are justified in asking the question and expressing some concern about it. This company has been taken over by interests which are under Argentine Government control. That means that we are not only paying to the Argentine for the meat we receive, but also paying very largely to the Argentine for the distribution of that meat in our own country. We ought to know a little more about that.
I would add to that that there is an annual distribution to the Meat Importers' National Defence Association which dates from a wartime agreement. That organisation, in the last recorded year, 1946–47, received for distribution among its members the sum of £936,000, and presumably the amount is not less for the current year. A considerable proportion of that payment to those importers will also go, via this company, back to the Argentine.

Mr. Osborne: In what way have Argentine interests taken over control of the Smithfield and Argentine

Meat Company? Did they buy a controlling interest in the common stock?

Squadron-Leader Fleming: On a point of Order. How does this matter arise on this Estimate?

Mr. Chamberlain: Further to that point of Order. It is a matter of great importance, Mr. Diamond, which might mean an additional hidden payment to the Argentine.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond): The hon. Member is not out of Order.

Mr. Chamberlain: I said that interests in Buenos Aires, under the control of the Argentine Government, have acquired a controlling interest in this very large meat company. If the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) likes to deny that, or enlarge upon it, he can do so. I think the matter is important, and menacing to us. In addition to this contribution to the Meat Importers' National Defence Association, a larger sum is paid to wholesalers in this country by way of compensation for the Government taking over their functions at the beginning of the war. That amounted, in 1946–47, to a gross figure of £3½ million. Here, again, the Smithfield and Argentine Meat Company, through its many subsidiaries, will secure payments from these firms.
It seems that there are four distinct methods of payment: First, for the meat; second, through this company for distribution of the meat in this country; third, through payments to importers; fourth, through payments to wholesalers. I would like to know whether the Minister feels that it is good policy that there should be this hold on our meat distribution as well as on our supplies? I would like to know whether it is simply due to coincidence that the major part of the capital of the Smithfield and Argentine Meat Company has been taken over by Argentine interests, and whether, in the agreement which has just been set forth by the Chancellor, we have had a really true and complete picture?

8.19 p.m.

Sir Frank Sanderson: I wish to confine my remarks principally to the importation of linseed oil and linseed cakes from the Argentine, but before I do so I want to ask the Minister two questions. The first refers to the purchase


of the railway companies. I find it very difficult to understand why payment for those railways was not met by the sterling balances which the Argentine accumulated in this country.

The Temporary Chairman: I would be grateful if the hon. Member would indicate under which heading this matter comes in this Estimate?

Sir F. Sanderson: If I am out of Order I apologise, but reference to the railways was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) and I thought I would be in Order in following up the point. However, I think I shall be in Order in making my second point. A cash payment of £10 million is to be made as a contribution towards increased Argentine costs of production in respect of the food agreed to be purchased by the United Kingdom. As that money is to be paid for the meat we had in the preceding year, it is obvious that there was some kind of a break clause in the agreement. Can the Minister inform the House whether there is any break clause in respect to the purchases which have recently been entered into? Assuming, as I think is highly probable, that the prices of commodities will fall during the present year, and mainly during the time when deliveries will be made, is there any clause which provides for those purchases being reduced nearer to those ruling in the world's markets at the time of delivery? If we are to pay £10 million for food which has already been shipped to this country to assist increased Argentine production costs, then, surely, in the event of prices falling in the world markets during the year, that price should be reduced accordingly.
The point I wish to raise is in respect of our purchases of linseed oil and linseed cake. I think that I am in order in referring to those two matters, because we have effected these purchases under the new agreement, and this money is required, I understand, to effect a settlement of the contract just entered into. In my opinion, the general policy of bulk purchasing is disastrous to this country. I do not blame the Government. I am not making a point that the Government have any recourse other than to make bulk purchases, at this time, but I would be relieved if the Minister could tell us that in principle he is opposed to bulk

purchasing, and that he will revert to the usual channels in purchasing in the open market.
On 6th December, 1946, the Ministry purchased 100,000 tons of linseed oil at £162 a ton f.o.b. Under this new agreement dated, I think, 12th February, we have purchased some 20,000 tons. It is true that the price has not been revealed. I understand that in the view of the Minister it would not be advisable for the price to be made public at the present time. I think, however, that the contract price of linseed oil is known. I suggest that the price paid for that linseed oil was £135 per ton. f.o.b. or, at any rate, that it was within 5 per cent. of that amount. If that is not so, will the Minister refute that statement? I want to demonstrate to the House what a costly price we are paying for bulk purchases.
In the years 1921 to 1929, the average price of linseed oil was £36 5s. a ton; in the years 1931 to 1934, the average price was £19 10s. a ton. In the years 1935–39, the average price was £25 5s. a ton. When we came to the war years, prices naturally increased owing to the increased cost of freightage and the increased cost of general services. Is it not an astonishing fact that during the war years 1940–43 the average price was £44 10s. a ton, in the year 1944, £61 a ton and in 1945, £62 a ton, whereas, it is only after the war, when one expects to see prices come down, that we really get the big jump? When we started bulk buying for the year 1946, the average price was no less than £82 per ton. It was at this point that something happened for which we have never had any explanation, so far as I am aware, from the Minister. From January to August, 1946, the price of linseed oil was £65 a ton, but on 29th August the price increased from £65 to no less than £135 per ton. Six months later, in February, 1947, the price was again increased to £200 a ton—700 per cent. higher than the average prewar price. I claim that these prices would not have been paid in an open market.
I wish also to raise the question of the purchase of linseed cakes from the Argentine. We have adopted, or, perhaps, we have been forced to adopt, a policy of purchasing linseed oil and linseed cakes from the Argentine, instead of adopting, what has always been our common practice—the purchase of raw linseed which was imported into the United Kingdom


and crushed into oil and made into cake for consumption here. The policy of purchasing the manufactured commodity instead of the raw material is having a serious effect upon a great industry of this country. As is well known this country is one of the largest seed crushing centres in the world. It is only due to the war that we have altered the process of purchasing the raw material and buying the manufactured commodity because of the difficulty, no doubt, in purchasing the requirements of linseed from British India, Canada, Russia and other parts of the world. I sincerely trust that, as soon as possible, the Minister will revert to the policy of purchasing the seed rather than the oil and cakes, which are the products of the seed. He will be well aware, no doubt, that linseed cakes do not stand a voyage well. They deteriorate and are subject to mould. It is more economical to import linseed from every viewpoint.
During last year, if one takes the total volume of linseed oil and cakes which the right hon. Gentleman has purchased from the Argentine, it will be found that in total the aggregate is about equal to the total amount of linseed which we used to purchase from that country before the war. It is expedient and wise that the Argentine and other countries should appreciate that the time will come when we will no longer pay 700 per cent. more for our requirements of linseed oil, and that we shall purchase the seed which will be crushed in this country. In those circumstances the Argentine may well find that they are erecting mills to crush their own seed and that they will have no market for that linseed oil. It must be borne in mind that the major portion, and, indeed, practically the whole of the linseed oil produced in the Argentine is being shipped to this country.
My final word is to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give an assurance that there will be a return at the earliest opportunity to the normal channels for the purchase of these commodities so soon as it is possible to discontinue bulk purchasing, and that our requirements of not only linseed oil but of all varieties of oil seed will be purchased in the cheapest market. Will he also see to it, as far as it is practicable, that we purchase the raw material, namely, oil seed, and not the products from it? If he can give that promise to the country we shall feel that

the time will come and one hopes reasonably soon when we shall be able to purchase these commodities at reasonable, normal, fair, average prices, and that we shall not have to continue to pay the fantastic prices we have been compelled to pay on this occasion.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Charles Smith: The hon. Member for East Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) will forgive me if I do not follow him over the ground that he has covered, tempting though it is to do so. I cannot forbear from remarking, however, that it seems to me very strange that anyone dealing as he was, primarily with trade with the Argentine should make an appeal for a return of what he called free markets. I hope that the Minister will not imagine for one moment that a plea of that sort will command support from this side of the House. It is impossible to forget when talking of the Argentine that, for example, returning to a tree market in importing meat means in practice returning to a situation where meat would still be subject to a system of bulk purchase—bulk purchase not by the Government but by a small number of highly organised firms working very closely together. Those firms before the war dominated the Anglo-Argentine meat trade to a very considerable degree. They handled between them 85 per cent. of the Argentine meat which came to this country, and it is an indisputable fact that, by their co-operation in the South American Meat Importers' Shipping Conference, they virtually allocated between themselves the quotas of meat which they would import in any particular year.
As I said, I do not wish to follow the hon. Member on the ground he has covered because I wish to address myself for a few minutes to the figures which are included under subhead H of the Vote, particularly to the comparison between the original and revised figures. As the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) indicated, there are various factors which have produced the difference between the two figures. One of these factors, which I do not think he mentioned, is the willingness of the Ministry of Food to allow price increases to fall on the consumer in certain cases. On this side of the Committee many hon. Members in previous Debates on this subject have indicated that we are in whole-hearted agreement


with the policy of using food subsidies to keep down the cost of basic foodstuffs, and frankly our criticism at the moment would be not that the Minister has gone too far in that direction, but that he has allowed himself in the past two months to be shifted to some extent from his position.
There has been over the last few months a small but definite and perceptible rise in the price of many essential foodstuffs. In one or two instances adjustments of that kind have been countered by reductions in the price of other foodstuffs which although they figured in the cost-of-living index, were very difficult to obtain at all. Although from the statistical point of view the adjustment of subsidy which had taken place did not increase the official cost-of-living figure, nevertheless, so far as the housewife was concerned, she found that she was obliged to pay more for the food she actually needed We on this side of the Committee would urge the Minister not to be in any respect deterred from following the policy which he has himself on previous occasions announced of using food subsidies to keep staple goods at a living figure. I will go further. Many of us on this side would not wish to see him adhere to a iling figure for foodstuffs if that, in fact, meant that the cost of living had to go up

Mr. Osborne: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he would like the food subsidies to take care of world prices no matter how high they went?

Mr. Smith: What I said, and what I adhere to, is that we on this side of the Committee would not wish the Minister to adhere to any ceiling for foodstuffs if that were to mean an increase in the price of the basic items of food. I trust that is clear to the hon. Member.
I want to approach the problem of food subsidies and the figures given under subhead H from a slightly different point of view. The policy embodied in these figures has been based upon leaving the existing wholesale, retail and processing arrangements broadly unchanged, and that fact has had a very material influence upon the size of the figures which we are considering. In fact, what the Minister is doing is underwriting the whole of the distributive and processing arrangements in the food trades of this country. If these

arrangements generally can be shown to be unduly expensive, then the figure of food subsidies is higher than it otherwise needs to be. If the arrangements are unnecessarily expensive, then the subsidising of the cost of living is itself costing more than need be.
It is fairly generally known that the processing of each of the basic foods in this country is in the hands of a relatively small number of firms. In each case these firms work in fairly close contact and liaison with one another. That is the case with grain milling, with margarine manufacture and with sugar refining, to take only three conspicuous examples. The Minister recently gave us the figures of the cost of grain milling. The Ministry of Food have an agreement with the grain millers which is indirectly responsible for the figures which appear in this subhead H, against the item, "Cereals including cereal feedingstuffs."
If it can be shown that the agreement which exists with the grain millers is an unduly and unreasonably generous one, it follows that the price of bread is being maintained at its present level at an unnecessarily high cost to the taxpayer. The figures which the Minister gave us showed that, in the last year for which he had reliable or adequate statistics, it cost 8s. 9d. to mill a sack of flour. The figures further showed that the profit element, additional to that 8s. 9d., was approximately 2s. 5d. a sack. I would suggest that that indicates a very high rate of profit which, I understand, is the standard under this rather complicated agreement which has been concluded with the grain millers.
The figures further showed that there was some variation between the costs at different mills. That is what we should expect, although it appears from the figures that the range is not very wide, except in exceptional cases. I suggest that the Minister should investigate very closely this arrangement which he has concluded with the grain millers, and ask himself whether it is not possible to effect these arrangements at a rather smaller cost to the taxpayer, and with a rather smaller profit allowance to those concerned. These are, after all, not figures which apply to a period of 12 months only. There is every reason to suppose that in this House we shall be examining figures of food subsidies for several years.
During the war it was permissible, and in fact inevitable, that there should be no very close and critical examination of some of these processing industries. But the time has now most definitely arrived for a critical examination to be undertaken of these arrangements, which are being underwritten by the taxpayer.
When the sack of flour, having paid its 2s. 5d. to the grain miller, is handled by the baker, he is entitled, if he turns it into bread, to a subsidy of 6s. 3d. That subsidy is calculated in such a way as to ensure that any baker, no matter how inefficient, shall receive a profit of 5s. on the sack of flour which he turns into bread. If there is variation between the costs of grain milling firms, there is a far wider variation in the costs of bakeries. The figures submitted by the Bakers' Association to the Minister as a basis of subsidy discussions illustrate that fact. There is a very wide variation in the costs of different bakery firms. The figure of the subsidy, as I understand it, is arrived at in such a way as to ensure that the most inefficient firm can keep in business and earn quite a reasonable rate of profit. What ensures a reasonable rate of profit for an inefficient firm ensures a very generous rate of profit for an efficient firm. Here, again, I would emphasise that this arrangement is being underwritten by the taxpayer.
The Minister might well give new consideration to the steps which should be taken to raise the level of efficiency at the lower end of the scale. There is considerable scope for further mechanisation in a great part of the bakery trade. That would not only be beneficial to the bakery industry, but would increase output and bring a very substantial benefit to the taxpayer. Wherever we look behind the figures which appear in this Sub-head we find agreements which guarantee very substantial returns to particular groups of distributors and processors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) has made reference to the agreement existing with the Meat Importers National Defence Association and with the Wholesale Meat Supply Association. It is a little difficult to discover precisely what functions are carried out by these associations. It is still more difficult to discover whether anyone has ever examined them criti-

cally to see whether those functions are being performed in the most efficient and rational manner. I would emphasise, once more, that this is a case when a distributive machine, or process, is being underwritten by the taxpayer. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that he does recognise what a large part of the distributive and processing arrangements in this country do have in influencing the figure for food subsidies and that he will be prepared to look very closely and critically into the arrangements which exist at present.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Spence: My general view in discussing these Estimates is that we have not nearly enough information before us. Having listened to the whole of the Debate, my feeling is one of grave misgiving. With an important discussion, such as that on the Argentine Agreement, we should have had some details such as have appeared in the foreign Press in our hands in time to consider the case before it was put to us tonight by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My main reason for misgiving is that the Government got the Chancellor to come down to explain the agreement. He is usually called in when there is a bad wicket. Tonight he did not fail the Government. He put over a very plausible case, but in my submission it was not a case which would stand full examination in the light of all the circumstances. It is greatly to my regret that we on this side of the Committee should not have had more facts, both in regard to the agreement and to the accounts themselves, so that we could have made a more constructive contribution to the Debate.
These Estimates really fall into two parts. There is that part which deals with our normal trading through the Ministry of Food, irrespective of the Argentine Agreement; and then there is the section which brings into the picture the extra amounts which are being spent in advance for next year. In examining the normal trading accounts irrespective of our Argentine commitments I feel a sense of something approaching dismay when I see this large rise of over £50 million, especially when we were told in August by the Prime Minister, and later by the Ministry of Food, that cuts were to be made in our imports of food from hard currency countries to an extent which, in a year's


trading, would have amounted to £210 milllion.
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak tonight and I will not detain the Committee unduly, but I must draw attention to the item of meat, where the rise of our normal trading, apart from the Argentine, is of the order of £56 million. We know that no very large increase has taken place in the prices which we pay to New Zealand and Australia. We know that there has been a moderate rise in the price of home-produced meat. Therefore, it seems that we must have been paying a most extravagant price to some other market if we have had a rise of £56 million when at the same time we have a reduced ration and a cut in meat for manufacturing purposes. These factors cause me to ask the Minister whether he can tell us what price we have been paying for meat from other than home and Dominion sources.
I pass to the question of how we buy our meat. It is most desirable that under the new Argentine Agreement we should know what we are buying. I consider that an improvement could be made in many of our existing agreements. In connection with the Argentine Agreement, can the Minister tell us what steps he has taken to secure a fuller share of meat offals? I admit that they are not included as part of the ration and therefore, ministerially, they may not be quite so interesting to him; but, from the point of view of the public who look for a little variety—and, I assure him from a medical point of view—meat offals will play a most welcome part in our diet. In the past I do not think we have secured our full share.
In addition, there is the manner in which our meat is shipped. Will it come in boned, and then shall we have to buy the by-products of the animals separately; or have arrangements been made under the new agreement that we shall receive, within reason, all that goes on the hoof when we are buying our meat from the Argentine? There is another point upon which I would like an explanation. Do we buy our meat "in store" from the country from which we are buying, or do we buy on a c.i.f. basis? It appears to me that if we can buy on a c.i.f. basis and put the problems of the turn round of ships and the handling of cargoes upon the vendor, it would help to speed up deliveries so that our meat would arrive

in this country in better condition than when we buy it "in store" as I understand that we do today.
Next in the Estimates I pass to the question of sugar. There, again, the position is not very easy to comprehend. We have had a cut in our sugar ration, but yet a large extra sum is now required to finance our sugar. It amounts altogether to the sum of £10 million. Since July, there has been a fall in world prices, and, unless a very large amount is going into stock, and I hope that is the case, It is difficult to see why, with a reduced sugar ration and falling world prices, we require this additional £ million. I hope the Minister will explain that point. It is possible, of course, as in the case of meat, that we are building up storage, but, when one looks at that part of the Estimate which deals with transport and warehousing, it is important to note that there is a fall of £ million, and, therefore, it does not seem to me that additional warehouse space is needed at the moment.
I want now to talk about cereals and cereal feedingstuffs, and with them I will also take animal feedingstuffs. Naturally, any increases that mean an increase in tonnage will be welcomed, because for too long it seems to have been the policy of the Government to buy the finished products, instead of buying the raw materials and allowing us to produce our own food. I hope the Minister, when he replies, will tell us what these increases in the amounts allocated for cereal feedingstuffs and animal feedingstuffs will mean in terms of additional tonnage, because it will give great heart and encouragement to those working on the land if they know that they can with confidence expect increases in the rations of these things next year.
Would the Minister also say whether, in the item relating to linseed oil, there is an allowance for animal feedingstuffs? There is an item for £26 million, and I would ask the Minister to say whether, contained in that £26 million for fats and oils, there is an allocation of linseed for animal feedingstuffs, or whether that has been separately indicated. I hope that, above all, the Minister will give us an answer about meat tonight. I think the rise which we now see before us, and the repercussions which it will have on the whole question of subsidies and the balance of payments, is so important that we should have an answer on the subject


of our meat supplies, and an answer to the question why, apart from the Argentine Agreement, we have had to buy £56 million worth extra. In fact, one might say that never has so little meat been bought for so many people with so much money.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith). It seemed to me that, in his criticisms of the costs of distribution, he was making the biggest condemnation of the system of fixation of prices in the long run. The hon. Gentleman was arguing that the returns for millers and bakers should be reduced, but that is just one of the very great difficulties inherent in the system. It is a system which necessarily subsidies inefficiency, and, to my mind, the hon. Member gave one of the biggest condemnations of the system which he could possibly have given, in that part of his argument.
Referring to the first part of his argument, in which he was talking about the raising of prices, I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman exactly where we are going. What are the Minister's instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is the Chancellor still pegging the amount of the food subsidy at £392 million, or has he raised the figure to £420 million, as implied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid)? And what has become of this £10 million in the Argentine Agreement which does not seem to be allocated to any specific products? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether it is shown in these Estimates. Is it all shown on the meat side? If so, does not that mean that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said he wishes to peg the subsidies at a certain level, he has, in this agreement, undertaken to pay a further subsidy of £10 million which is not being shown in any part of the account unless it is shown in the meat account?
We would like to know whether this £10 million has to be added to the subsidy on meat, and whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now going back on what he previously said, that he would only allow the subsidies to be

raised to a certain level, and that, after that level had been reached, he would allow prices to rise. The Committee is entitled to know that because it is bound to have an effect—

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the bottom of the page, he will see the item, "Unallocated payment to Argentine Government."

Mr. Macpherson: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for clearing up that point.
My next point is that I hope the Minister of Food will say exactly what effect the new agreement will have on the actual price to be paid for meat. Are we to understand that the consumer in this country is likely to have to pay an increased price for meat? What is going to be the result of the price which the consumer has to pay for maize, because, obviously, however much we welcome the increased supplies of maize, any substantial increase in the cost of maize is likely, ultimately, to be reflected in the prices which have to be paid for the end products—meat, bacon and eggs. We would like to know that from the right hon. Gentleman.
There is another matter to which I wish very briefly to refer. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is anything in the Argentine Agreement regarding the carrying of these foods? Is it prescribed in the agreement that a certain proportion of the foods must be carried in Argentine ships? That is a most important matter in view of the fact, as this House is aware, that, in the past, the Argentine has often insisted, in any bilateral agreement it has made, on 50 per cent. of the goods that it exports being transported in its own bottoms. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will clear up that point.
In conclusion, it seems to me that, in the matter of bilateral agreements, we are getting to the stage where it is going to be difficult for us to have Estimates before this House. Instead of having a sum shown in sterling, we shall shortly reach the point where it will have to be shown in coal, petrol, and so many Argentine railways to be written off for that year. That will be the ultimate and inevitable end of bulk trading. Although the Government are paying lip service to the principle of multilateral trade, they are, at the same time, entering into bilateral agreements,


which are being narrowed down to an exchange of so much of such and such goods for so much of such and such other goods. In the end, we shall find that Estimates of this kind will become completely unintelligible and useless.

9.4 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: So far, in this Debate, we have had something like 10 speeches, none of which, with the exception of that by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was frankly explanatory without taking any side, has been favourable to this Supplementary Estimate. The speech which came nearest to being favourable towards it was that of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith), who said that he wished to see food subsidies promoted irrespective of whatever ceiling might be set by the Government. I think it was fortunate for him that at the time he spoke the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in the Chamber.
The fact is that tonight we are discussing the most disastrous of all those agreements which have been made with the Argentine Republic. It is only some 11 months since we discussed the last one, and I have been looking up the reports of those Debates. In the first place, the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury made it clear that in 1944 we had entered upon a four years' agreement as to which the prices could be reconsidered in 1946. It is only 11 months ago when Parliament was asked to pay £7 million to the Argentine in order to perpetuate the 1944 agreement. We were told from the benches opposite that His Majesty's Government had concluded a hard bargain, and in exchange for the £7 million, among other things, the agreement of 1944 was to be extended for a full year.
Therefore, if those terms have been carried out, and if what His Majesty's Government said on that occasion was correct, there should be no need for us tonight to be debating further increases for the Argentine. If one looks at the Press, I admit that Senor Miranda has made it clear that he considered that, by our refusal to maintain the convertibility of sterling, whatever agreements he had made were now rendered null and void. But if that be so, all one can say to His Majesty's Government is that this is yet another proof of the disastrous

financial policy which they have pursued in the past, and of what happens when they try to make terms and conditions with regard to currency which they know they cannot fulfil and which merely result in our having to debate this gloomy and, if I may say so, final proof of the disaster of His Majesty's Government's economic policy.

Mr. Daines: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicate what other country we could approach to get the meat and other foodstuffs which we are getting under the agreement with the Argentine?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That is an entirely different point but, with permission, I will deal with it later. I was only dealing with the actual fact which I have mentioned, and which I do not think the hon. Member would wish to contradict.
Coming to this present agreement, I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) mentioned something which the Treasury spokesman had said: I would like to refer to one further phrase of his. He said:
Then the suggestion was made from the Argentine side—and it was very interesting to us—could we link up the situation by advancing to the Argentine Government the value of the goods we should purchase from them, on the understanding that they used that advance, pus some current sterling, plus drawings on their blocked account, to pay out the railways. That is the structure of this curious agreement.
I do not think Parliament has ever been asked to consider a more curious agreement. In the first place, we are told tonight that we are to get certain foods and feedingstuffs. Let us not forget what we are paying in exchange. Let us not forget, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us earlier, that what we are asked to guarantee to the Argentine are coal, steel, tinplate and those other manufactures of ours which, because of their nature, we can sell in any single market in the world. The Chancellor of the Exchequer laughs. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that those categories of goods which we have promised the Argentine are the only ones for which he knows there is a ready market throughout the world?

Sir S. Cripps: I should say that we can sell them in many markets, but that in few can we get so good a return as we get from the Argentine.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I hope the Chancellor is right and that he will maintain that view by the time I have concluded one or two more considerations from this agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "He will resign."] He will follow a very illustrious master if he does so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the great object of the agreement is that we get food and feedingstuffs without dollars. He went on to say that the whole of the A Account which at present is blocked, is going to be made free. He, no doubt, knows far better than I do, with my imperfect knowledge, that it is a fact that anybody who comes into the category of having balances freed in this nature can secure hard currency by buying from the sterling area, goods which we ourselves desire to sell direct for hard currency. I want to give only one example—rubber. It is possible, and indeed it has happened, for Malayan rubber to be sold for French francs while French rubber is sold for hard currency, like dollars, being replaced in the franc area by our own. The Chancellor is fully aware of that. He went on to say that we got quick payment for the Argentine railways and he seemed to make that a point in favour of the agreement. He did not mention to the Committee that, after all, we still own these railways and, surely, if we are selling them we are—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is swinging rather wide of the Supplementary Estimate.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his statement that the purchase of this food and the sums we are now paying are all part of one indivisible contract and, surely, if he is allowed to refer to the full terms of that contract we are allowed to do so.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it is necessary to remember that I was not then in the Chair. If a right hon. Gentleman or hon. Member says something he ought not to have said, it cannot alter the fact that there is nothing whatever in this Estimate before me in relation to the railways agreement.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Sir Robert, we are asked in these Estimates to grant £110 million which will guarantee delivery of certain foods, but we are told that the

grant of this money is an essential feature to the pact, and that if we do not grant it, so that the Argentine railways may be bought, we shall not get the food; surely we are allowed to discuss all the features together.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is nothing about the railways in the Estimates which we are discussing.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Further to that point of Order, Sir Robert. We are told that, unless these railways are sold, we shall not get the food and, therefore, I would suggest, with great deference, that it is in Order to refer to the railways we are selling for this food.

The Deputy-Chairman: I adhere to my decision that we cannot discuss the railways agreement.

Mr. Turton: May I draw your attention, Sir Robert, to page 2 of the memorandum about the agreement which states:
This revised Supplementary Estimate is presented in consequence of the agreement just concluded with the Government of the Argentine Republic, under which His Majesty's Government agrees
to pay out the purchase price of the railways. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened this Debate by giving full details of that agreement and explaining this memorandum, with fuller and more detail, are we debarred in the Opposition in answering the points he made?

The Deputy-Chairman: Point out where it says anything about railways.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Up to date this Debate has been conducted, certainly, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, on the footing that the Minister of Food is asking us to pay £110 million in order that a certain agreement may go through. That is the whole basis of the Supplementary Estimate. If we are to determine whether it is a good thing that the agreement should go through, we must look at all the terms of the agreement, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly pointed out on that point that we were to be told all the terms of the agreement. One of the terms of the agreement is that certain money is released in order that £150 million sterling may be immediately available to the Argentine Government. It does not matter what, but it happens to be to pay for railways. The point is


we must discuss the terms on which £150 million is to become immediately available to the Argentine Government. That, I apprehend, is the point my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) is trying to make.

The Deputy-Chairman: I dare say that, from that point of view, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, and also the hon. and gallant Gentleman. But the Chair is tied to the items stated in the Supplementary Estimate, and is bound to keep hon. Members to what is directly stated in the Supplementary Estimate; and I must tell them that the question of the railways agreement does not enter into this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Reid: Further to that point of Order. I do not think you, Sir Robert, were in the Chair at the time when this Debate began, and it would be most unfortunate if the character of the Debate were altered at this juncture. I can assure you—and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree—that in the earlier stages of this Debate it was common ground that the Government had to convince the Committee that the agreement was a good agreement, in order to get this £110 million. That being so, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did his best to convince the Committee, and narrated with great clarity the whole of the terms of the agreement, and, in particular, the financial terms which were devised with the object of producing the £150 million free in the hands of the Argentine Government in London immediately. We criticised the means by which that £150 million is put at the Argentine Government's disposal. Surely that is necessary to meet the case the Government sought to put to us. I can assure you, Sir Robert, that that was the basis on which both of us conducted the early stages of the Debate.

The Deputy-Chairman: I shall listen further to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do not promise not to call him to Order if I think it is necessary to do so.

Sir F. Sanderson: Further to that point of Order. If it is the case that we are now allowed to discuss the railways, may I continue my speech?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not ruled that way at all.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: One of the points of the Chancellor was that we obtain speedy payment for the Argentine railways; and I was saying that surely, in all respects, His Majesty's Government should demand payment in accordance with their own wishes. But what has happened? First we pay £110 million to the Argentine. Of this money, £10 million is to pay what are called increased costs of Argentine production, and £100 million are to be paid into the B Account. From that B Account payment is to be made back to this country for the railways. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has agreed to that, rather than to payment from the A Account. Even if what they want is a bad deal, at least let them make it out of something that bears an onerous guarantee to His Majesty's Government, rather than agree to pay out of an account which bears no such guarantee. This agreement means once again that His Majesty's Government have chosen the worst of all worlds.
I would remind you, Sir Robert, of what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said 11 months ago, when defending a similar agreement, though it was in less harsh terms than the one we are now discussing. He said:
We have not been silly or soft"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1947; Vol. 434, C. 1763.]
On this occasion the Government could not say this. All I can say is that they have again given away everything and got in exchange a few months' feedingstuffs and food for this country. They may say that that is something valuable to have done. But how long do they think they can go on selling railways and tramways in order to keep this country in food?
What do they think will happen in 12 months' time when they go back to the Argentine and try to make a new agreement? If they look back on the terms of the agreement they made 12 months ago and compare it with the terms today, what do they think will be their reception when they go back next time? True, they have a few tramways and a few dock installations still to sell. But compare that with what they have had to spend this time. Unquestionably, when they go back next time they will find that anything they can get will not be something contrary to our


amour propre, something that is unworthy of a great nation, but something which not even this House of Commons would tolerate.
Let us think what we have done. We have sold our major assets in the Argentine—assets which took 60 years of the resources of this country to build up. We have sold them for nine months of meat and feeding stuffs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Six months."] I am being generous to the Government, and I will stick to nine months. We are paying prices far and above anything else that exists in the world. I know that Senor Miranda is not satisfied with those prices, but I ask the Chancellor to consider them: Linseed per quintal, which before the war was 17 pesos, is now 112 pesos; wheat, which before the war was seven pesos, is now 60 pesos; maize, which before the war was eight pesos, is now 40 pesos. If one looks at our adverse trade balance, in 1946 it was £36 million; in 1947 it was £95 million. The Chancellor tells us he is satisfied that the Argentine Agreement will help us to bridge that gap. But what will £10 million—even if the whole sum is achieved—do to bridge that gap of £60 million? How far does the Chancellor really think the statement of Senor Miranda, that he will make other concessions in the future, if it means anything at all—and he knows as well as I do, indeed far better, what those concessions mean—is likely to materialise in any unilateral benefit to this country?

Sir S. Cripps: It is very helpful.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Chancellor says it is helpful. It is time that this House of Commons took one decision, namely, whether we are going on bartering away our last remaining assets for whatever we can get, irrespective of the price we have to pay, and irrespective of the future which it will bequeath to us, or whether at last we are to reassert our honour and our purpose and speak the truth when we are faced with an agreement like this, which is dishonour to us and traitorous to those who come after us. That is our decision tonight. It is easy enough for the Chancellor to say, "I have got food; I have got this, that and the other; I have got them at this price." What he has to answer is how he will feel in 12 months' time, or even two or three years' time, when the assets that

still remain have been sold, and when we have to go back, to negotiate even more pauperised than we are now. How then will the Government be able to face not only our creditors abroad, but those who have sent us here to try to look after them?

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Collins: My only reason for intervening in this Debate for a few minutes is because of a remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) that, in effect, in his view the Argentine Agreement was the most disastrous of all agreements that had been made by my right hon. Friend. He referred, among other things, to feedingstuffs. It occurred to me that he could not possibly have spoken during recent months to farmers. We on this side of the Committee have had to listen on many occasions to utterances made with owlish solemnity by hon. Members opposite, to the effect that it would be much better, and much more economical, if we imported into this country, not eggs and bacon, but feedingstuffs. Of course it would be more economical, but he and all other Members must know that feedingstuffs are extremely scarce in the world. They must know, or should know, that one of the most vital needs of the British farmer today is some easement in the feeding-stuffs position, even if it depends on the stringent conditions of these negotiations—their very protracted nature indicates the extent to which our people tried in the matter.
Anyone who considers these things will know that 600,000 tons of feedingstuffs, in addition to the quantities we had previously contracted for from the Argentine but did not receive, will make possible an almost revolutionary change in the present position of feedingstuffs allocation to farmers. We on this side, as opposed to hon. Members opposite, recently greeted with enthusiasm the announcement of the deal in coarse grains with Russia. We who greeted it enthusiastically knew that it was the first step towards an increase in feedingstuffs to farmers, which in due course would be translated into more eggs and bacon for our people produced on British soil. Which is the policy hon. Members opposite have always advocated, although they have never told us from where the feedingstuffs were to be obtained. That 750,000 tons merely off-


set the 600,000 tons we did not receive from the Argentine. It obviously did not make any difference at all in increasing the ration of feedingstuffs, or in bringing in people other than the 1939 producers.
There are hundreds and thousands of people who can produce more eggs and bacon, if it were possible to enlarge the scope of allocations of feedingstuffs. Any Member with any knowledge of farming will know how vitally important this is to farmers. It is a gross misuse of language for the hon. Member to suggest that this agreement is most dangerous. It is an agreement which must be every bit as welcome to anyone who desires the welfare of the people of this country as was the Russian grain agreement.
As for these cheap remarks, such as we are going to feed our people on the proceeds of the Argentine railways or tramways for the next six or nine months, they do not impress me at all. What we are suffering from is merely the disaster of the war. We cannot go on blowing the world to bits for 10 years without having to pay for it. The hon. Member said that these railways were the accumulation of 50 or 60 years of endeavour and savings. Do we not know of all sorts of things in this city and even in this House, which have been the accumulation of many years of endeavour and savings which were blown to bits in a few seconds? Therefore, there is not much point in that argument. I am sure that the farmers of this country, and those who are looking forward to eating the bacon and eggs which will be produced from these feedingstuffs, will say that this was not a disastrous Agreement, but a successful Agreement and a major step towards the rebuilding of British agriculture

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr Strachey.

Mr. Osborne: On a point of Order. I am one of the only two back benchers who have sat through the whole of this Debate, Sir Robert—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Osborne: When the Minister of Food has finished shall we have the opportunity of making a contribution to the Debate?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot say; I do not know when the Minister of Food will sit down. This Debate ends by a certain time.

Mr. Osborne: Further to that point of Order—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Osborne: I shall not sit down; I intend to ask this question, and—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order, and if it is, that is not the way to put it. Mr. Strachey.

9.32 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): We have listened to a very interesting Debate, and I confess that I wish it could have been listened to very widely in the country and that careful attention will be paid to it. The proposition which has been reiterated from the Opposition benches tonight is that we should not have made these very substantial purchases of food and feedingstuffs from the Argentine. It is a very interesting proposition that someone should be prepared to go to the country and say to the people, "We ought to have forgone at all costs this meat, oils and fats, and linseed," which, although it is not a food, is an industrial raw material of great importance. Such a proposition is one which I am quite sure my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and all of us on these benches would like to meet on any public platform. [An HON. MEMBER: "At North Croydon."] Yes, and posthumously at Paisley, as we might say. The people of this country should know that the Opposition have now committed themselves to this proposition.
I would like to pass from that to the more serious detailed points which have been raised on the substance of this agreement which, I agree, is large and complex, and which, I believe, as my hon. and learned Friend said at the beginning of the Debate, is very much in the interests of this country. I will reiterate the positive reasons why that is so towards the end of my remarks, but, first, I will deal with the points which have been raised in the Debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) asked: Why should we unblock the hitherto blocked account of the Argentine Government, the A Account, as part of this Agreement? The short and broad answer is that, taking the agreement as a whole, unless that was done, the Argentine Government might well find themselves, indeed, probably would, without current sterling available for their very substan-


tial purchases of goods from this country and we should be the last people to put the Argentine Government in that position. When the Argentine Government pay for the railways as part of the agreement, as they definitely inform us they will do, and also keep, as they propose to keep, a very important balance of sterling for the purpose of currency reserve in their own country, we should be the last people to object to such use for sterling, because it is surely an admirable thing that sterling is so used by a major country of the world today. If the Argentine Government do that, as they intend to do, unless this account were unblocked, the Argentine Government might not find themselves in a position to pay for the long list of exports which we certainly desire very much indeed to sell to the Argentine. Therefore, the unblocking of that account is a very necessary part of the whole transaction, and one with which we have no quarrel.
I was asked what was the justification for the guarantee against devaluation which the unblocked moneys would then carry. The justification for that, surely, is in the very important aspect of the agreement, under which we make our purchases in the Argentine in sterling instead of in dollars. Surely, that is something for which some quid pro quo it not unjustifiable. I was also asked whether this agreement superseded and washed out the earlier, so-called, Miranda agreement come to in September, 1946. The answer to that is that if some clauses of that earlier agreement are revised under the new agreement, that does not wash it out or supersede it. It is merely a revision and reviewing of the earlier agreement.
I was then asked a series of questions on prices. I was asked whether the £10 million payment to the Argentine Government, under the new agreement, meant, in fact, that the prices paid under it were unjustifiable, and had gone up to above the world market prices. We are able to say that that is not the case, if judged by the prices which were obtainable by sellers in the market for these commodities over the past period. The question was then posed as to the amount in this agreement which referred to new purchases, and the monetary amount that may be attributable to commodities purchased under earlier transactions. The

quantity of maize of 1,200,000 tons to which reference was made refers to the new quantity of maize. I am not willing to give a split to the financial sums attributable to the new quantities and the old, because were I to do so, the price could be calculated at once.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Why not?

Mr. Strachey: For the reasons which we have steadily given, and shall continue to give, not just in this transaction, but in all these transactions. It would be against the public interest to give the price of the contract. That is not something that we have thought up for ourselves; it is the earnestly repeated advice of those very eminent businessmen who conduct these negotiations for us and who buy these commodities.

Sir G. Fox: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that he has had a bad deal?

Mr. Strachey: They are perfectly convinced that their hands would be hampered in these transactions were that information to be given. These are the very men of whom hon. Members opposite are so loud—and very justly so—in their praise. These are the businessmen to whom we are told we ought to listen carefully in these matters when they give advice on commercial questions.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to deny that the price of maize under the agreement exceeds £30 a ton.

Mr. Strachey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not make such assumptions

Sir G. Fox: Deny it.

Mr. Strachey: It was the next point I was coming to in my remarks. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not make an assumption, and if he would just have patience for a moment I will come to that point. I can tell him quite simply and easily that I am prepared entirely to deny that the price of maize exceeded £30 a ton. It was very appreciably less than that figure.

Sir G. Fox: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the figure known?

Mr. Strachey: I will not give an exact figure, but it is appreciably less than the figure he has mentioned. From the point


of view of an answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, that is rather a pity because point after point in his speech, as the Committee will remember, following that assertion, was based on the hypothesis of a dreadfully bad bargain which we had obviously made, because the price which we had given for maize exceeded £30 a ton. The price did not exceed £30 a ton but was very appreciably less, so that that part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument falls to the ground. I need say no more about it.

Sir G. Fox: What was the price?

Mr. Strachey: I now turn to the next price upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke, namely, that of meat. He said again very acutely, turning to the Estimates, that it appeared that the price of meat had not been raised at all from the earlier price being paid under the Miranda agreement. I can say something of the price, and I can tell the Committee at once that that is true, if we impute none of that £10 million to the payment of the meat price, though I think we should impute some at any rate of that £ million to the meat price, but how much should be imputed to that and how much to the other commodities is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: rose—

Mr. Strachey: I have very little time and I have a large number of points to answer—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Hon. Gentlemen must restrain themselves.

Mr. Strachey: I have a very large number of points to answer, and if I give way to hon. Members who get up now it will simply mean that those hon. Members who raised a number of points in the course of the Debate will not receive an answer.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also raised the question of the meat ration, and he asked if I could give a guarantee that this purchase of meat guaranteed the meat ration at the present level? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the meat which we receive from the Argentine previous to or under this agreement is only one part, and not by any means 50 per cent. of the meat which we receive in total. Therefore, it would be quite wrong to suggest that the securing of this

particular part of our meat supplies would necessarily secure the meat ration at any particular level. All we can say is, "other things being equal." But other things are not necessarily equal. They may improve, or deteriorate, and it would be absurd to take this particular part of our supplies and say that we guarantee any particular level of distribution.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) both asked what are we to do in future years when transactions of this kind arise. There is no large asset to sell in the Argentine, such as the British railways. That, surely, is simply part of our general balance of payment problem. Evidently the hon. and gallant Member has reflected very little on this question. Surely, if he had reflected on it at all, he would see that when we come to the question of paying for our food imports from the Argentine—and other imports for that matter—and have no capital asset which we desire to sell, an agreement which, for the first time, has made it possible to base our transactions with the Argentine on sterling, and pay in the Argentine on sterling, is something for which we shall be extremely thankful.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Would the Minister confirm that in 1944 the original agreement was made for payment in sterling, and this is the first time sterling arising from current transaction is guaranteed by this country?

Mr. Strachey: Just the opposite to that is the case. The earlier agreement was, made in convertible sterling equivalent to, dollars—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In 1944?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, this is the first time it has not been made in convertible sterling. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman based a question not so directly on the Argentine Agreement, but one which bears on it in an important degree, which was the reconciliation of these figures in the Supplementary Estimate with the Estimates for the levels of subsidies over the year. It is an important point of some accounting complexity. Put in somewhat round figures, the increase demanded in these Estimates is of some £146 million. Of that, £95 million is prepayment under the Argentine Agreement, leaving some


£50 million which is a genuine increase, as it were, in the Estimates on a cash account for this year. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, that is mainly, and could only be, accounted for by a difference in levels of stocks. I am not saying that that is the only character, but it is much the most important one.
It is true, as he suggested it must be true, that they do reveal that in certain commodities we have raised the level of our stocks fairly substantially. That is true of meat, sugar and tea. It would be a mistake, and I must so warn the Committee, to think that we have been enabled to build up vast new reserves of these commodities. I wish we had. In most cases it simply means that we have been able to raise our stock level from the unpleasantly low levels to which they had fallen at an earlier period. I think it is really little more than a measure of prudence to have raised them at the earliest moment we possibly could by the appreciable, but by no means excessive, amounts to which they have been raised.
That accounts for much the greater part of the £50 million otherwise unaccounted for, but it is not the only factor. There have been other factors both on the plus and on the minus side. There have been reductions in rations of which, paradoxically, perhaps the first effect is usually to increase the cost, because the amount sold to the public is reduced while a contract running on means that for a time the amount bought goes on at the old level and an increase in stock results. There have been transactions in which the Ministry has made a profit. One has received notoriety in this House. I refer to the transaction in nuts; but it has come in in aid of these figures. There have been price rises cutting the other way on the commodities we have had to buy.
All this is balanced out—that on the cash account, the amount needed for actual purchases this year, and the amount received on sales. This extra sum, apart from the Argentine prepayment is needed. However, that does not mean that there has been any proportionate increase, or indeed—we believe that it will be found at the end of the financial year—any increase at all in the subsidy level as it has already been announced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the House repeatedly that the subsidies would be held below the figure of £400 million. I think

that it will be found at the end of the year that they have come out very near to the predicted figure of £392 million.

Mr. Turton: Would the Minister explain why on 1st December, subsidies amounted to £420 million? What is the error in these figures?

Mr. Strachey: There is not an error in these figures, but there have been several changes since then. There have been reductions in distribution, there have been price changes and there have been two increases in prices to the consumer. We believe that those measures and events taken together will reduce the total subsidy level by the end of March, the end of the financial year, to very near to £1 million or £2 million on one side or the other of the figure of £392 million.
I pass now to the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson). He asked whether the £10 million payment was retrospective in regard to food which had already been purchased. No, I think that is fairly imputed to the new foodstuffs which are purchased under the new contract. He dealt with the question of bulk buying in principle. I have not time to follow him in that subject, but I seemed to hear him say that bulk buying at the moment was indispensable but also disastrous. That seems to me a little like calling a lifebelt something disastrous when it is thrown to one. It is an ungrateful attitude on the part of the swimmer. I would not agree, of course, that bulk purchase is necessarily a disastrous policy to adopt. I would look at these matters on their merits, case by case, and I would not rule out bulk purchase at any time where, on balance, it seemed advantageous to the national interest all things considered.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the high price of linseed. I neither confirm nor deny the prices he mentioned. I would say to him that we ought to compare the price we pay not with the pre-war price but with the price which other customers have to pay. I think that it would be found in that comparison that we are not doing so badly. I would agree with him very strongly that the price of linseed is very high and that we would much prefer to import the linseed rather than the linseed oil. I agree with him that naturally a very high price of that kind, and the choice of the Argentine to sell the oil and not the linseed, naturally induces cus-


tomers like ourselves to look round for other sources. We have begun to grow linseed ourselves at home. It may be that in Africa and elsewhere in time we shall be able to develop other very important sources of supply upon which we may be driven to depend to a very large extent.
I have no time to develop, and I have no desire to traverse it, the interesting speech which the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Charles Smith) made, but let him believe that these are matters very much in our minds today, and I am grateful to him for drawing the attention of the Committee to them.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) asked me if I could tell him what the effect on meat prices would be. Again, as in the case of the ration, this is only one of the factors in our general supplies of meat, which is averaged out, and I cannot tell him what particular effect this transaction would have on meat prices. I now come to the speech by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch, and I am bound to say that, if I were to take it seriously, I should have to go over again some of the points which were raised earlier in the Debate, but which were put by the hon. and gallant Member far more intemperately and with far less regard to the realities of the situation.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about shipping?

Mr. Strachey: It has no part in the agreement whatever.
There is one point which I should like to make about the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch. He commented strongly on the terrible price which he alleged—and it is a high price—the Argentine are charging for wheat, but we are not buying any wheat from the Argentine. The hon. Member suggested that it was a quibble. I am very interested to know that it is a quibble that a high price matters less if you are not buying.

Mr. Spence: Would the Minister agree—

Mr. Strachey: No, the Minister will not agree.

Sir G. Fox: rose—

The Chairman: rose—

Sir G. Fox: On a point of Order.

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must resume his seat when I rise.

Sir G. Fox: On a point of Order. May not hon. Members ask the Minister if by wheat he means broken wheat?

The Chairman: That is not a point of Order at all; it is a question of fact.

Mr. Strachey: I wish to repeat what the Chancellor said at the beginning of the Debate—that the advantages, and we believe that they are very substantial, to this country—there are advantages to the Argentine as well; there must be two sides to these deals—the advantages to us are that it enables completion of the railway deal, which we think is a very real advantage to us, so that our very substantial food programme can be carried through; we open up to a very considerable degree the markets of the Argentine to types of exports which were closed to us, and, finally, and perhaps above all, we are basing, for the first time, enormously important transactions with the Argentine upon sterling.

9.59 P.m.

Mr. Turton: The Minister, I think, has misconstrued our case on the Argentine Agreement. We believe that we have not bought enough feedingstuffs, and that what he has bought he has bought at far too high a rate. Last July, he said we were buying 700,000 tons of maize. In fact, he has failed to buy the 240,000 tons which he promised last July. Now he comes along and tells us that he is buying another 1,200,000 tons this year. When are we going to get delivery of these feedingstuffs? The Minister of Agriculture—

It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported tomorrow.

Committee report Progress, to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TELEPHONE KIOSKS, RURAL AREAS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: I wish to deal in this Adjournment Debate tonight with two aspects of the Post Office telephone service. The first is the provision of telephone kiosks in rural areas, and the second is, the charge of £4 per annum, paid for five years, where a kiosk is required in rural areas where no public telephone exists. I propose to deal with the two points in that order. The details I am going to give refer, of course, to my own constituency, although I may say that there is general dissatisfaction throughout the country, both at the inadequacy of the telephone service in rural areas, and, particularly, with regard to what I would term this iniquitous charge.
In my constituency, there are 124 parishes, 43 of which are without a public telephone service. It is true that eight of the 43 have a post office where there is a telephone, or that there is a telephone at the railway station. With regard to those villages where there is a telephone at the post office, I would point out that, when the post office is closed, there are no telephonic facilities available whatsoever. It is usual in villages for the post office to close at 6 o'clock in the evening, which means that, from then until the next morning, it is quite impossible to telephone.

Mr. Baldwin: And over the week-end.

Mr. Shephard: And, as my hon. Friend says, over the week-end. I appreciate, of course, that the demand for telephone kiosks far exceeds the supply of materials and manpower, and that it will take a long time to satisfy all the requirements. But I want to point out to the Minister the importance of the telephone service being made available to every centre of population, however small it may be. The greater emphasis which is laid today on agriculture very often necessitates the farmer having to get into touch quickly with the machine repairer. Then there is the summoning of police, the ambulance, or the fire brigade, quite apart from the ordinary considerations of public convenience, which make it imperative that

the whole country should be served as quickly as possible by this very essential service. When the Minister replies, I hope he will be able to satisfy me that everything is being done to overcome the shortage as rapidly as possible.
I now come to the contentious part of my case, which is the charge of £20—£4 for five years—demanded from villages where there is no post office equipped with a telephone. When I first took up this matter, the Minister referred me to a Question asked by the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) and to the reply given by the Minister, in which he said that he could not abolish the system of payment because it had the merit of distinguishing cases of the greatest need on the basis of local support. That seems to me to be an extraordinary argument. Apparently, if the community is not prepared to pay £20, in the Minister's view there is no need of the service. When one of the rural district councils took up this matter with the sales superintendent of the Post Office Telephones, they were told that the general policy of the Post Office was to establish kiosks to a sufficient extent to meet public needs, wherever enough suitable sites on which they would pay their way could be found, and that where kiosks were likely to be unremunerative, a guarantee would be necessary in the urban areas. So far as the rural areas were concerned, in those villages where there was a post office, a kiosk would be provided free, but if there were no post office then the local authority concerned would have to give a written undertaking to pay £4 a year for five years.
The last paragraph of the letter I hold in my hand reads:
The Post Office feels that it is not unreasonable for a local council to contribute a small part of the expense of providing a facility they consider necessary for residents of their parish.
Is it really the Minister's case that a local authority is responsible for subsidising a national service?—because that is the argument in this letter. When we have discussed in this House the question of nationalising electricity undertakings, the argument put forward from the opposite benches has always been that private undertakings work for profit, that they put profit before service. That is what the Minister is doing in this case. I maintain that a village without a post


office has more need of a telephone than a village with a post office. Therefore, I can see no justification whatsoever for the Minister to adopt this attitude. As he knows, the profits of the Post Office are not inconsiderable. I have been told that they are something in the region of 30 million a year. Surely, it is the first duty of a nationalised service to provide a service to the community without penalising any one section. While a kiosk may not be a paying proposition in an area, it is indefensible that the local authority should be asked to subsidise it. The information I have had is that local authorities have no power to levy rates in order to pay for a national service. My local authority have informed me that they cannot guarantee a payment of this nature, and so have the county council of Nottinghamshire.
I am certain that the Minister is not happy about this charge. If he wishes, he can deal with this matter on the basis of the size of the village. If he feels that unless he makes a charge he cannot get a proper priority for a community below a certain number, he can easily decide to instal kiosks free of charge in villages with a certain number of inhabitants. That would eliminate the small hamlets and similar small communities. I do impress upon him the fact that a good deal of feeling has been created over this matter, and I ask him to look into the question again, to see whether he can give some satisfaction to those rural areas who have to pay this sum of £20.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I think that this charge, or this guarantee, for telephone kiosks in remote districts is a heritage of long standing, and it is a matter which a Labour Government ought to consider on this footing—that even if a single telephone kiosk does not pay in some particular instance, yet the telephone service, and certainly the Post Office as a whole, does pay. Surely, it is good Socialism that telephone facilities should be provided according to need, and there is a real need in these remote rural areas. I would not have expected any previous Government to reconsider this matter and, indeed, they have never done so. It is, I believe, a charge and a practice of long standing. I ask the Minister not to shut the door to some future consideration of this comparatively small matter, because it may have very serious consequences to

the people who live in these remote villages.
I agree that the telephone kiosk, when it is provided, may not be used often, but when it is used it may be for such things as accidents to people working on the land or on some remote road, or the summoning, as has been suggested, of the fire brigade or the doctor, or something like that. It seems all wrong to me that the provision of a kiosk should be measured merely by the number of times it is likely to be used.
If I may give the Minister one instance—a rather remote one—his colleague in the Ministry of Civil Aviation will tell him that aeroplanes have been used in the remote parts of Scotland to bring back cases of sickness and have saved many lives. The fact that they have been used has been justified on the ground of saving life and providing facilities of that sort which would not otherwise be available; it has not been estimated as a matter of cost for that particular aeroplane service, but as a matter of real need in a public service. I suggest to him that in this instance there is a similar need, and it really is not fair to expect a local authority—I think it is the rural district council in these cases—to foot this particular bill. After all, if the matter is to be measured by point of view of need why should telephone kiosks be provided free of charge where there is already a post office? I should have thought, as the hon. Member the Member for Newark (Mr. S. Shephard) has said, the need was less, and not more, in these cases, and, if there has to be a choice in the matter, the greater need was in those villages which had not a post office and which, throughout the day, were deprived of post office facilities.
I do not think this ought to be a party question in any sense. It seems to me a matter of plain common sense and a matter which ought to be determined on the footing of need—need not only in every day affairs, but in emergency—and I can see no logical reason for calling on local authorities to provide a guarantee, or a contribution, when the telephone service as a whole, and the Post Office as a whole, is able to afford these things. Any large enterprise is accustomed—as in the case of the aeroplane—to footing the bill for something which is un-


remunerative in order to provide a service to the public. I cannot see why the Post Office should not do the same thing, or what obstacle there is to its doing so, unless this has gone on for so long that the Post Office cannot make up its mind to make the necessary change.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General is not going to make a feeble defence of this out-of-date provision. I hope he will tell the House he realises that justice lies in abolishing this guaranteed payment of £20. My hon. Friend and namesake the Member for Newark (Mr. S. Shephard) has put the case very fairly. It cannot be refuted that a Government service—or any public service—stands first of all to serve the whole of the people. A nationalised service, above all, ought to put social obligation to the people before the seeking of profits. Yet here, in this instance, the Post Office are following the latter course. This organisation last year made a profit of £36 million. Yet it demands £20 from rural district councils in certain circumstances for installing telephone kiosks. This is quite indefensible.
No Minister who has regard to social obligations can stand at that Box, as I am quite convinced the Assistant Postmaster-General is about to do, to say that there is really a good and sound reason for this charge. There is no good and sound reason why this demand on rural district councils should be maintained. There is very grave doubt whether a rural district council is empowered to levy a rate to subsidise the Post Office. Indeed, I think that probably a case in law could be taken against a council that tried to do that kind of thing. There is every reason in the world why the Post Office should abandon this ruthless pursuit of profit and have regard to other things. A village in the country, an isolated community, stands in greater need of telephone communication than does an urban district. Why should it be the case that because the Post Office cannot make a profit for a village—or add to the enormous profits that the Post Office does make—that village should be denied these reasonable facilities?
My hon. Friend has made what I consider to be the reasonable suggestion: that

if there is a shortage of equipment—and I think it is quite evident that there is a shortage of equipment—and if there is a shortage of manpower—and I am quite prepared to believe there is—the Post Office should determine the size of the locality which justifies the installing in it of a kiosk; that they should then decide to instal kiosks in villages of that size of population, and that they should undertake, as soon as conditions are normal again to provide telephone kiosks in smaller hamlets, when there are more facilities and materials available. The maintenance of this iniquitous charge is quite improper. It is quite contrary to the idea of a nationalized service. I feel certain the Assistant Postmaster-General will be doing a benefit to the whole of the country and, indeed, to the conception of nationalisation for which he has the misfortune to stand, if he announces tonight that this iniquitous charge is to be withdrawn.

10.14 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I have listened with very great interest and sympathy to what has been said tonight, but I cannot find that any practical alternative has been suggested. I want to make clear at once that the Post Office has never failed in its obligations to the rural areas. The whole country is served by exchanges and telephonic communication. There are 14,000 public telephones in rural areas. What the Post Office has done is to instal a telephone call office wherever there is a post office. To meet the argument that the telephones should be available day and night, we are removing them from inside the post offices and installing kiosks outside the post offices. Very shortly that work will be completed. We are being asked tonight not to stop at those 14,000 telephones, but to put a telephone kiosk in every village and hamlet. Our problem is how to choose the hamlets and the small villages into which to put the telephones. Here we are in very great difficulty, and I say, with all due respect, that no alternative has been suggested tonight.

Mr. S. Shephard: I think I suggested that the hon. Member should use the population method of determining the high priorities.

Mr. Hobson: That is precisely what we are doing. Where a village is large


enough to have a post office it has a telephone. The contribution of £4 for five years is a very small sum, and is only equal to the sum which has to be paid for a residential telephone. It cannot be said to be a heavy cost.

Mr. S. Shephard: But what is the principle?

Mr. Hobson: It has this advantage: Asking the parish council to provide this sum acts as a sieve in sorting out the most urgent cases. That is precisely why we are using this method, which is the only practicable one. It would be impossible for the Post Office to look into all these cases. This method has the further advantage of leaving the choice to the local authority, which seems to be highly commendable, for we hear such a lot about over-centralisation and interference from headquarters. Surely, leaving the choice to the parish councils is the most desirable method, and is infinitely preferable to leaving it to the Post Office.

Mr. Mitchison: I had a case of this sort in my constituency, and I think I am right in saying that the local authority for the purpose is the rural district council, not the parish council. Is there any reason why the rural district council, or any other appropriate authority, should not be asked to make the choice without being compelled to pay for the telephone?

Mr. Hobson: It is our intention to increase the number of telephone kiosks in rural areas, but at the present time, owing to the limitation of supply, we can provide only 800 telephone kiosks in rural areas each year. There must be some method of assessing the most urgent cases, and if a local authority considers a telephone to be necessary and urgent it will be prepared to make this small contribution.

Mr. S. Shephard: But what is the principle?

Mr. Hobson: The local authority is the parish council, and it is parish councils who are making representations. There are isolated villages in which we deem it essential that there should be telephones, and we are making provision. In the last year telephones have been installed in many such cases. Turning to the general principle of installing telephone kiosks in other small hamlets

—and many of them have very small populations—it would be quite impossible for us to undertake that at the moment. That is our position, and that is why the charge is made. Also, the making of this charge under the present method is a means of avoiding the allegation of favouritism. If any hon. Member can suggest a practicable alternative my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider it.

Mr. W. Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Hobson: I cannot give way at this stage. We have given serious consideration to this matter. It is not a question of desiring to be adamant about it, but we have come to the conclusion that this method is the most practicable way of allocating the small available supply of telephone kiosks.
Reference has been made to the farmers. I should like to point out that as a result of Government policy we are rapidly providing all farmers with telephones, and where there is a recommendation from the local agricultural committee we are installing telephones which need up to 15 poles. That is a considerable step. Therefore, I think it cannot be claimed that there has been any neglect with regard to rural areas. Far from the local authorities subsidising the Post Office, the contrary is the case, because the cost of the maintenance and upkeep of a rural telephone is in the region of £60 a year. In most cases we do not get back a quarter of that. In fact, the whole of the network of rural telephone call offices is not profit-making, but is subsidised from urban areas, and rightly so. We are concerned to provide a fair and equitable method by which we can allocate the supply of telephone kiosks.
Having regard to the size of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we have more public telephone kiosks than any other country in the world. We are proud of that achievement, but we are not going to rest on our laurels. With the present supplies and materials, there is no alternative but to assess the needs of the population. I would point out, however, that a telephone is available where there is a village post office. The hon. Member for Newark said that 43 villages in his area were without a telephone. He was very reluctant to tell us the size of these villages and hamlets, or the number of people involved. I suggest that the


number of people concerned is very small indeed. As I have said, no alternative has been put forward by hon. Members tonight. In the case of special areas, where it is necessary to have a telephone kiosk, it is being installed, but we cannot at the moment, within our present limitation of supplies, provide a telephone kiosk for some of these hamlets which consist in most cases of only a "pub" and a couple of houses. That would be entirely impracticable. Therefore, we consider the present method is the fairest, because it throws the responsibility, not on the Post Office, but on to the local authorities.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I want to reinforce the argument which has been put from both sides. I think it is unanswerable. It is entirely wrong to say that we have not put forward any alternative suggestions. Those villages which have a post office should be considered last, because it is the remote areas which want these telephone kiosks. It is wrong that they should be expected to give this guarantee of £20. It might be said that the village postman should refuse to take a letter to a remote farm house because there was only a 2½d. stamp involved, and because it was entirely uneconomic to make the delivery. The postman makes the delivery because it is part of the Post Office service.

Mr. Hobson: That is not a fair comparison, because special equipment is required in the case of a telephone.

Mr. Baldwin: We are not expecting the Post Office to equip all the villages at the present time, but as supplies become available, facilities should be given to these remote districts. The Minister has said that farm houses in some of these remote districts are equipped with telephones. Believe me, it is no joy to be the

only person with a telephone in a remote district. Calls are received at all hours of the day and night to do some service for a neighbour, which cannot and would not be refused. It is these districts which most need an extension of the telephone service. It is quite out of date to insist that poor districts should have to contribute this £20.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Willis: It has been rather interesting tonight to hear hon. Members opposite asking the Government to apply a little bit of socialism in the case of the Post Office. That is what this demand really comes to. It is a demand which I can see no reason to refuse, namely, the demand that the Post Office should supply a service where it is needed, irrespective of the ability of the area to pay. I should have thought that that was a perfectly good principle to apply to the telephone service. This matter particularly concerns us in Scotland, because we have very large sparsely populated areas. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has pointed out that we have frequently in the past been indebted to the air services for meeting the needs of these sparsely populated areas, and we should like to see the same principle applied in the case of the Post Office. A telephone is urgently required in case of serious illness or matters of that kind, and there should be no question of whether or not an area is able to pay this charge of £20.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.